By John Turney 
As an ESPN analyst, Hall-of-Fame coach Bill Parcells once described Adam Vinatieri's improbable 45-yard field goal in the 2001 playoffs -- a kick made in a blizzard at Foxboro vs. the Oakland Raiders -- as the "greatest football play of all time."
Surprised? I was. After all, it was a kicker who made the game-tying play, and kickers aren't football players, right? At least, that's what we sometimes hear. But not Vinatieri. He was more than a kicker.
We know because Parcells told us so.
Rewind the videotape to 1996 when Parcells was head coach of the New England Patriots, and Vinatieri was his kicker. In an early December game vs. Dallas, one which the Patriots won, Vinatieri managed to chase down Cowboys' running back Herschel Walker on a kick return, prompting Parcells to give the rookie his highest compliment.
"You're not just a kicker," he told Vinatieri. "You’re a football player."
OK,, so he was a football player, per Parcells. But the greatest football play ever? Even Bill Belichick, who took over as the Patriots' coach in 2000, qualified his praise by calling Vinatieri's 2001 field goal "by far the greatest kick I have ever seen."
Best football play or greatest kick ever, it doesn't matter. Either way, it was a remarkable achievement given how much football Parcells and Belichick had seen in their careers. And it was that clutch kick, among many others, that landed Adam Vinatieri on the Pro Football Hall-of-Fame's Class of 2025 finalist list. Now, this week we learn if it's enough to make the former New England and Indianapolis specialist the second kicker ever to be a first-ballot choice (Jan Stenerud was elected in his first year of eligibility in 1991) and the third kicker overall.
If not, he'll have to wait, as Morten Andersen (whose records he topped) did until 2017 when he was enshrined in his fourth year as a finalist. Whichever way the voting goes, Vinatieri has a compelling case for first-ballot induction, and let's count the ways:
-- He played 24 seasons in the NFL, third most behind George Blanda (26) and Andersen (25).
-- His games played (365) are second most in league history, behind Andersen, and his 32 playoff contests trail only future Hall-of-Famer Tom Brady.
-- He's the NFL's all-time leading scorer with 2,673 points.
-- His field goals made (599) are also the most ever.
-- He scored 238 points in the playoffs, which are first all-time ... as are his post-season field goals (56).
-- His clutch performances in Super Bowls, including game-winning field goals in Super Bowl XXXVI and XXXVIII, are iconic moments that helped define his career.
-- He was a first-team All-Pro in 2002, 2004 and 2014 and made the Pro Bowl those same years. Moreover, he was voted to the NFL 2000s' all-decade team and is one of two kickers named to the NFL's 100th anniversary team. Stenerud is the other.
-- Five times he was AFC Player of the Month and 27 times the AFC Player of the Week.
-- He's in the New England Patriots' Hall of Fame and the Colts' Ring of Honor.
As you can see, the honors -- like his kicking records -- go on and on. But they weren't easy to achieve ... not at first, anyway. As a rookie in 1996, his career got off to a shaky start when he missed three field goals in a Week 2 loss to Buffalo. He missed another in a blowout win the following week, irking Parcells ... and why not? Heading into a Week 4 matchup against Jacksonville, he'd converted just three of his first seven attempts.
So the pressure was on for the young kicker out of South Dakota State.
But that's when Vinatieri excelled, with the Jacksonville game offering a glimpse into what would make him extraordinary. He nailed five field goals in that contest, including the game-winner, in a 28-25 overtime victory, and proceeded to miss only three more kicks the rest of the season, including the playoffs.
Now, fast-forward from that point in his career to his retirement when Belichick called him "the greatest kicker of all time," and you'll understand why he should be on the short list when the Hall's Class of 2025 is revealed on Thursday.
"When you look up 'clutch' in the dictionary," Brady said to Vinatieri on social media, "it should have your picture. An incredible teammate with an incredible work ethic. Honored to have played with the GOAT."
Brady should be. Without Vinatieri's clutch kicks, Brady may not be considered the G.O.A.T. of NFL quarterbacks. A few weeks after Vinatieri's kick(s) in the 2001 "Snow Bowl" (or "Tuck Rule Game," take your pick) he hit a 48-yarder as time expired in Super Bowl XXXVI to give the Patriots a 20-17 win over the heavily-favored St. Louis Rams.
It was the first of six Patriots' Super Bowl titles.
Two years later, he hit a 41-yard game-winner in Super Bowl XXXVIII to secure a 32-29 win over Carolina, and a dynasty was born. The following season, the Patriots would go on to win their third title in four years.
"Even in the other Super Bowl we won we won against Philadelphia (Super Bowl XXXIX)," said then-special teams coach Brad Seely, "he kicked a field goal late in that game to put us ahead. Now it wasn’t a deciding kick, but every one of those Super Bowl wins was a three-point game. And it was because of Adam."
That can also be read as ... "because of Adam," Tom Brady got his first three rings. Clutch is what mattered, and Vinatieri was just that.
That's important to remember. Because while he holds a slew of records, Vinatieri wasn't the most accurate kicker of his era. He just wasn't. He was good, ONE of the best. But there were kickers with higher field-goal percentages. In fact, at his retirement, his 83.8 percent accuracy rate ranked 15th all-time among kickers with 200 or more field goals. Of course, that's nothing new for Hall-of-Fame kickers. When Andersen retired he was 14th, and Stenerud was 10th.
Earlier Hall-of-Fame kickers who played dual roles weren't much different. Blanda was 22nd (minimum 100 made field goals) and Lou Groza was sixth (75 made, minimum). But it wasn't across-the-board accuracy that defined Vinatieri's kick as much as it was pressure. He responded to it like few others.
When his team was down by three or fewer points in the last two minutes of play, for example, his 83.8 accuracy rate jumped to nearly 87 percent. And when his team was down by three or fewer points in the last 30 secondss, it increased to just over 88 percent.
Bottom line: He hit field goals when it mattered.
So there you have it. It's a first-ballot resume, though it doesn't mean Vinatieri is a first-ballot lock. Modern analytics could get in the way.
In one analysis, I've seen former Chiefs' great Nick Lowery named as the game's leading kicker, ranked about eight points above average ... or "above-replacement kicker"... per 16 games, with Andersen and Stenerud ranked four or fewer. That means that metric considers the league's two all-time leading scorers a field goal or field goal-and-extra point better than a mediocre kicker. So the so-called "value," or the position value, of a kicker isn't close to that of a position player.
Hopefully, the Hall's board of selectors sees more than just metrics when it looks at Vinatieri. Let's hope voters remember what they saw with their eyes, what we all saw ... and that's a kicker who lasted 24 years , broke every career record in the book and excelled when the stakes were high, no matter the weather, the opponent or the situation.
Adam Vinatieri was money on game-winning kicks in the biggest games, and isn't that what a Hall of Fame kicker is all about? We're about to find out.
BW ...
ReplyDeletePeople felt Vinny might get voted in tonight but instead a very small class with J Allen and Gates recent moderns, E Allen, a darkhorse and the only senior, Sharpe, getting elected. Another 60s player in Baughan, misses out.
Why not!!
ReplyDeleteLike many others, I am deeply disappointed by the (entirely predictable) results of the Hall’s new voting procedures, but I’m not sure the “sky is falling” sentiments of some on the internet are entirely fair. There were always going to be growing pains with any new system, and it is incumbent on the voters to change their voting patterns if they are unhappy with the results. There is nothing wrong with a voter saying, for example, “it is now time that we as a panel prioritize Torry Holt so that in the future we can get to Willie Anderson and Reggie Wayne.” This is the exact same as the old “respect the queue” refrain.
ReplyDeleteBefore getting to my “solution,” I think it is important to remember the “old days” when the electorate rarely elected a full slate of candidates. I can’t emphasize enough that it was very, very rare. Back then, the last “up or down” vote was anything put a rubber stamp. Candidates were often voted down by what Dr. Z termed “the silent assassins,” voters who never expressed any reservations about a candidate but still failed to vote for him when the “up or down” vote occurred. Think of this as the football equivalent of the idiot (or idiots) who failed to vote for Jeter and Ichiro out of some misplaced belief that it disrespects Babe Ruth to have a unanimous Baseball HOFer. These “silent assassins” believed that they were keeping the Hall “exclusive,” but they were simple delaying the inevitable (except for poor Bob Kuechenberg) and creating the seniors backlog that ironically seems to be one the driving forces behind the year’s new misplaced voting procedures.
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteWhile partial lists have been floating in articles this week, here is what my research indicates as a complete list of the candidates who failed to be elected after progressing to the final “up or down” vote: Dante Lavelli (2), Joe Schmidt, Night Train Lane, Jim Taylor, Rosie Brown, Tony Morabito, Jim Ringo (2), Weeb Ewbank (2), Willie Davis, Clark Shaughnessy, Paul Hornung (2), Don Maynard (2), Pete Rozelle (2), Doug Atkins, Sid Gillman, Joe Namath (2), Willie Lanier, Fran Tarkenton (2), Len Dawson, Bob Griese (2), Art Shell, Ted Hendricks, John Mackey, Al Davis, Charlie Joyner, Tom Mack, Jackie Smith, Dan Dierdorf (2), Dwight Stephenson (3), Mike Haynes, Lynn Swann (3), Ozzie Newsome, Dan Rooney, Howie Long, Jack Youngblood, Bill Parcells, Bob Kuechenberg, Harry Carson (2), Rayfield Wright, Michael Irvin, and Paul Tagliabue.
Read that list again. Arguably the two best CBs (at least before Deion), the greatest TE, numerous members of the 1960s Packers, the greatest center (three times!), and at least nine members of the 100th Anniversary Team (including some who were elected unanimously). What a waste! Think of all the HOFers we are missing because some electors somehow thought someone like Joe Schmidt wasn’t a HOFer despite his 2 NFL championships, 8 first team all pros, and 10 pro bowls! And remember, this wasn’t a matter of prioritizing another player over Schmidt (or any of the others), but voting them down when it was a simple “up or down” vote.
Part 3
ReplyDeleteNo one wants to go back to that era of HOF voting. But I think there are some individuals who believe the influx of seniors (again largely a product of the above wasted slots) and the “automatic” five-moderns-a-year has cheapened the Hall. Let me be crystal clear that I’m not one of those people. I’m a “big hall” guy. I love that Sam Mills is a HOFer while acknowledging that he is a nuanced candidate. But that doesn’t mean that I think everyone should be a HOFer, including some HOFers (although some of the individuals I’ve been most skeptical of have become some of the best ambassadors for the game, league, and Hall). Importantly, I recognize that reasonable minds can disagree, and different viewpoints should be weighed and considered. Afterall, if I believe, as a “big hall” guy, that there are some questionable HOFers, I recognize that “small hall” guys have significant concerns. And while we can never make everyone happy as to the results, there are procedural changes that can (and should) be implemented.
Therefore, I’ve come up with the following modified system for the modern candidates that I think addresses the legitimate concerns of the “small hall” guys, while encouraging the election of worthy HOFers as soon as reasonably possible:
1) Continue the screening committee (which did seem to resurrect worthy candidates);
2) Continue to have the 25 (plus ties) semifinalists lists;
3) Continue to have 15 finalists (although I would go back to allowing ties to get in the room);
4) Continue to have the individual presentations for each candidate;
5) After each presentation have a “up or down” vote (i.e., is this candidate a HOFer caliber player);
6) After all 15 presentations, reveal those candidates who received 80% (or whatever percentage you want) of the “up or down” vote;
7) If 15 to 11 candidates received the necessary 80%, election continues as it used to with reductions to 10, then 5, and the final 5 being HOFers;
8) If 10 to 6 candidates received the necessary 80%, election continues with a reduction vote to 5, and the final 5 being HOFers;
9) If 5 or less candidates received the necessary 80%, then the election is concluded with the remaining candidates being HOFers (with perhaps a minimum number of three or four).
Part 4
ReplyDeleteI don’t realistically think that the “up or down” vote will ever result in less than five candidates being elected, but if it did, so be it.
I advocate for this procedure for a number of reasons.
First, it eliminates the possibility of a “tyranny of the minority” situation where a candidate with a strong minority following progresses to the final 5 under the old system and is elected because the entire electorate is disinclined to vote down a “final 5.” In short, the criticism of the “automatic” five per year is gone.
Second, it eliminates the mathematical problem inherent in the current system’s vote for 5 of 7 (with 80% needed). I might be wrong, but I don’t actually believe that any of the votes in this year’s final 7 was a “nay” for any candidate. It was instead a “preference” for someone else. Any of the final 7 would have been a worthy HOF. Therefore, Holt, Anderson, Kuechly, and Vinatieri weren’t “voted down,” they just weren’t preferred compared to Eric Allen, Jared Allen, and Gates (after the potential use of tiebreakers no less). My revised system already guarantees that the final 15, 7, 5, whatever have survived an “up or down” vote of 80%. From that point, it is simply a matter of “ordering” the candidates to find out who gets in this year and who waits for a future year. This system also eliminates relativism—meaning a “weak” candidate doesn’t get in because the ballot is “weak.” Each candidate is initially vetted individually, not compared to his fellow candidates.
Part 5
ReplyDeleteThird, this system also allows voters to vote their conscience without fear of “wasting” a final 5 spot. If there are complaints about the modern election, I believe it is that voters were unwilling for the prior 17 years to go back to the “old days” of voting down a final 5. In fact, in at least one year, the final 5 “up or down” vote didn’t even occur. My revised system guarantees that every candidate survives an initial “up or down” vote before the winnowing or prioritization process begins. And each voter can treat the “up or down” vote however he or she wants. For example, if they want to apply a higher standard to “first ballot” guys, so be it. If they want to prioritize one player per position, that is their right. In effect, this system borrows the best aspects of Baseball’s HOF selection process by adopting a single “up or down” vote for each candidate (subject to Baseball’s 10 votes per year limit), while keeping the best aspect of Football’s (the election meeting and accompanying discussions). And of course, the votes don’t need to be static year to year. Voters can and should change their mind if presented with new information. As an exercise, I went ahead and voted on this year’s finalists (remember I’m a “big hall” guy, but I also decided that I would only vote “yes” for first ballot guys that I thought should be worthy of that perceived “honor”):
My 10 yes’s in 2025: Eric Allen, Jared Allen, Willie Anderson, Jahri Evans, Antonio Gates, Torry Holt, Steve Smith, Terrell Suggs, Reggie Wayne, and Darren Woodson.
My 5 no’s in 2025: Luke Kuechley, Eli Manning, Fred Taylor, Adam Vinatieri, and Marshal Yanda.
Fourth, this system could have the additional consequence of cycling guys through the room—a common complaint of some on the panel. In short, all electors will know which of the guys they support don’t have sufficiently wide appeal to ever be elected (i.e., anyone eliminated in the first “up or down” vote). This doesn’t necessarily mean that an elector should abandon those candidates, but it does mean that he or she needs to better explain their support. And if they can’t, then he or she should shift their support to another candidate who has broader appeal.
Part 6
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the non-moderns, the same system could be used. However, unless the same non-moderns are nominated year over year, any system that makes voters choose between highly qualified candidates is a serious problem. Consider the following hypothetical group for 2026—seniors: Albert Lewis, Lester Hayes, Bob Kuechenberg; coach: Belichick; contributor: Kraft. All three of these seniors are worthy of the HOF but even under my proposed system two could fail to gain election because they were up against one of the three greatest coaches of all time and an incredibly powerful owner. Yet, if the same three seniors were nominated against Holmgren and Hay from this year or a hypothetical Dan Reeves and Bud Adams from a future year, all three would likely be elected under my system. The solution to this problem is very difficult. The year a non-modern is nominated should not be outcome determinative of whether that non-modern is elected. Instead, each non-modern candidate should stand on his (or her) own record. But unless candidates are renominated each year by their committees, the hall is literally pitting potential HOFers against each other (not entirely unlike Deion’s “upper” room idea). Like Holt, Anderson, Kuechly, and Vinatieri, this year’s non-moderns weren’t necessarily “voted down,” they were simply not preferred. The one benefit of my procedure would be that the committees would be informed (based on who survived the initial “up or down” vote) which of their nominees had enough support to potentially be elected.
Finally, without some change to the non-modern election process, the senior committee would be better served to either decline to nominate a third candidate or nominate someone so obviously unqualified that he would not receive any of the precious votes necessary to get to 80%. Any process that encourages such obviously disingenuous gamesmanship is fundamentally flawed and should be strapped immediately. A potential solution would be the following: any nominee that survives the 80% initial vote is automatically renominated for the next year’s pool of five. But I’d prefer they do something like Baseballs eras committee with set schedules. For example, in years ending with “0” or “5” there would be one senior and one contributor nominated; in years ending with “2,” “4,” “7,” and “9” there would be one senior and one coach nominated; in years ending with “1,” “3,” “6,” and “8” there would be two seniors resulting in the following elections for the next decade:
2025 – 1 senior / 1 contributor
2026 – 2 seniors
2027 – 1 senior / 1 coach
2028 – 2 seniors
2029 – 1 senior / 1 coach
2030 – 1 senior / 1 contributor
2031 – 2 seniors
2032 – 1 senior / 1 coach
2033 – 2 seniors
2034 – 1 senior / 1 coach
Such a ten year cycle could result in up to 14 seniors, 4 coaches, and 2 contributors. That feels about right with the backlogs. That said, there is no way the Hall could go a decade without changing its voting procedures—for better or worse.
all good points. The 'yes/no' portion of the process was one that was traditional and wish was kept. I would hope it comes back in some form
ReplyDeleteEric Allen inducted instead of Lester Hayes? Instead of Dave Greyson or Lemar Parrish? Seriously?
ReplyDeleteJared Allen inducted before Mark Gastineau?
Or what about Sterling Sharpe instead of Del Shofner? What?
None of these inductions make sense. Criteria is arbitrary.
BW ...
ReplyDeleteI really hope some of these HOF voters and the voting process itself can read and possibly incorporate what Justin proposed. He pointed out the math of this voting process four months ago on zoneblitz.com but the voters simply didnt seem to understand it enough, which is why the MINIMUM got voted in. Maybe next year the process--or even pre-vote collusion--will be better, though that is considered a no-no.