Taylor facing blitz
Dr. Z: LT one 'no' vote away from Hall of Fame snub
Posted: Saturday January 30, 1999 12:21 PM
Got a question or comment for Dr. Z? Click here.
MIAMI -- I don't think Lawrence Taylor is going to make the Hall of Fame. At least not this year. And right now it's a pretty big story down here, almost as big as the Super Bowl itself.
Usually I get pestered by a million guys with microphones, minicams, etc., asking for a prediction on the game, or its entertainment value, or how I like the week so far, you know, the usual nonsense, but this year three out of four questions I get concern LT's chances of making it when we vote on Saturday.
I'm a selector, see, so people figure I've got a better handle on it, and I guess I do, since I've been kind of polling my fellow members and trying to do a little lobbying behind the scenes. I'm for LT. I'll get into the reasons later.
At the beginning of the week I thought his chances were good. I only knew of four negative votes out of the eight it takes to ding him. Now the number is up to seven, and those are the people who admitted it. (Lord only knows how many silent blackballs are out there, or guys who say they'll vote yes -- because they don't want to take any heat from people like me -- and then won't.) The seven seem pretty unswayable, at least in conversations I've had with them.
After LT's Monday press conference, and those zieg-heil quotes, I knew he was in big trouble. "It's a no-brainer ... I don't apologize for anything," and so on. Oy vey! Why couldn't he just have kept his mouth shut, or said something bland and non-committal. But that's not his style, and I think it's going to cost him. He challenged the selectors, and when you bestow great power on people who are not used to it, you've got to be careful with them. Especially when their votes are secret.
First of all, LT's place in history. I don't think he was the greatest linebacker who ever lived. But I think he was the greatest pass-rusher, or rush-linebacker, whatever you want to call it. He changed the game. His impact was monumental. I don't think any other defensive player in history could match it. Hall of Fame credentials, to be sure -- and there's a special category called First Ballot Hall of Famers, which is even more elite, and he belongs there, too.
But there's the rap sheet. Two drug-related arrests. Bad. Falsified federal tax returns. Sounds bad, but many others fall into the same category. Traffic summonses, unpaid parking tickets, etc. Big deal. He wasn't driving drunk. He didn't slam into anybody's car. Questioned by a grand jury investigating organized crime. Hey, I was, too. (Not a grand jury, but I was questioned. Twenty-one years ago when I wrote a piece on a fighter who'd been in jail for 17 years.) But put it all together for LT and it's not good.
That's what I heard from the selectors who told me they couldn't vote for him. My first argument: Our bylaws are very clear. A man is judged by his performance on the field. Period. And the answers I got were very clear, too. Those might be the Hall's bylaws, but they're not ours. Our conscience is our bylaw.
Next argument: What kind of an example is this for kids? Athletes are supposed to be role models. My argument to this argument is that parents are supposed to be role models. That's part of the job of parenting. And part of that is a lively discussion with the children, explaining that it's possible for a guy to be an absolute whiz on the field but creepy in his personal life. Do we stop rooting for all the guys who stiff their ex-wives on child support, who are nailed on DUIs, who smack a guy or break up a bar? We'd be pretty limited. Do we keep Picasso out of the Louvre because he was awful to the women in his life, and many other people? At times it's necessary to separate the man from the achievement, and if an intelligent parent can explain this to his or her child -- I know it's tough -- he'll raise a more perceptive kid.
I'm thinking this through, and it sounds logical, but, and it's a big but, I must mention my own experience in this regard. My son, Michael, when he was playing pee-wee football, worshiped Herschel Walker . That's when Herschel was Georgia's all-everything back. One day he read a piece on Walker's workout regime, the thousands of push-ups he did, etc., and darned if Michael didn't start doing it himself, without any urging from daddy.
Then Herschel declared on national TV that he would not leave the University of Georgia under any circumstances, and five minutes later he signed with the New Jersey Generals of the USFL. My son was crushed.
"He lied, daddy. He lied in front of all those people."
I tried to play the devil's advocate, explaining that this was a guy who'd seen poverty all his life, and when the big money came, he just couldn't turn it down. Hey, don't be so upset.
"But I used to think he was something special," my 10-year-old said. "And now he's just another fink." And Michael stopped doing his push-ups.
Lawrence Taylor revolutionized the game, but his criminal tendencies have turned off voters AP |
|
Oh, brother. Did I have an argument for that? I did not.
And do I have an argument for the guys who think LT is letting a lot of kids down? Yes, two of them. The one you read above, and the fact that others did so, too, and were not denied their accolades. And how much do I really believe those arguments, in my heart of hearts? About 75 percent worth. I hope you realize that I'm trying to be honest here.
Other arguments I heard from the negative selectors weren't so sensible. At least two of them told me that the arrogance LT showed in his Monday press conference caused them to switch their prospective votes. My reaction to that is the same as when I hear a judge passing sentence and remarking that the accused "did not show the necessary remorse." Give me a break. Translation: he wasn't a skilled liar.
One guy from Detroit said that he'd vote for LT in the year 2000 if he cleaned up his act this year. And if he doesn't? "Then I won't vote for him." And if he never does? "Then I'll never vote for him."
"Then you'll be keeping out one of the greatest players of all time," I said.
"Look," he said, "I kept trying to get Alex Karras [Detroit Lions] in, but the year that he was out of the league for gambling kept him out."
" Paul Hornung was thrown out at the same time, but he was voted into the Hall of Fame."
"I wasn't a selector then."
I heard the same kind of argument from a guy from Texas, who reminded me that Bob Hayes ' jail time kept him out.
"The precedent was set," he said.
"But you lobbied for Bob Hayes," I reminded him.
"Yeah, and I lost."
"But you felt it was wrong then. Why don't you feel it's wrong now?"
"Because now there's a precedent."
I couldn't keep this ridiculous argument going any longer because I would have lost my temper and started screaming. And I learned in my very first year as a selector that if you get sore and antagonize people, they'll get even -- by voting against anyone you favor. Yes, that kind of back-biting does exist.
I'm going to lobby very hard for LT, both behind the scenes and in the actual meeting itself. The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that his greatness as a player overshadows everything else and he belongs in the Hall of Fame. We are not a morals committee; we're not a judge and jury. No to LT's drug and tax problems? Yes to Bobby Layne 's wild drinking sprees and Hornung's gambling? That's not our role.
I'll try my best, but I don't think I'm gonna win this one.
Got a question or comment for Dr. Z? Click here.
| 
