The Instigator
TBD3
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
Teleroboxer
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Jerry Kramer should be in the NFL Hall of Fame

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
TBD3
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2010 Category: Sports
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,707 times Debate No: 11689
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

TBD3

Pro

From 1958 to 1968, there was an offensive guard who absolutely dominated the NFL. He is one of the best offensive lineman of all time and he made life completely miserable for defensive linemen.

This guard is Jerry Kramer.

Right now, Kramer is not in the Hall of Fame. Sportswriters have repeatedly denied his induction into the Hall. This is absolutely ridiculous.

All NFL fans know that the Packers dominated the ‘60s. When people name the main contributors to the Packers' championships, they think of Bart Starr, Ray Nitschke, Jim Taylor, Paul Hornung and legendary coach, Vince Lombardi. It is a travesty that Kramer isn't one of the players mentioned often.

Any fan who knows anything about football in the ‘60s also knows that it was the decade of one of the single most famous plays in NFL history. That play was called the "Packers sweep".

~~~~~~~~~~
Championships
~~~~~~~~~~

As you can see from above, Kramer was the starting right guard on one of the most dominant dynasty in NFL history. Here are the NFL championships that Kramer won with the Packers:

1961 – Defeated New York Giants (37-0)
1962 – Defeated New York Giants (16-7)
1965 – Defeated Cleveland Browns (23-12)
1966 – Defeated Dallas Cowboys (34-27)
1967 – Defeated Dallas Cowboys (21-17)
Super Bowl I – Defeated Kansas City Chiefs (35-10)
Super Bowl II – Defeated Oakland Raiders (33-14)

Five NFL Championships and two Super Bowls? That is simply amazing. Kramer has more rings than most players you will ever find. He was a key component of the Packer offense that averaged 28.4 points per championship game.

In these games, the Packers averaged a whopping 38.14 rushing attempts per game, 143.57 rushing yards per game, barely over one rushing touchdown per game and 3.7 yards per attempt. That's right, the Packers had a total of 267 attempts, 1,005 yards and 8 touchdowns. Kramer was a primary reason for the success off the running game that allowed over 1,000 yards in championship games alone.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Packer Sweep
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The aforementioned "Packers sweep", also known as the "Lombardi sweep", could be the most famous play in NFL history. It was the staple of the dominant Green bay running game. When the Packers needed a short-yardage play, they called the "Packers sweep".

This play consisted of either Paul Hornung or Jim Taylor running a sweep, following the two pulled guards, Jerry Kramer and Fuzzy Thurston. Kramer ran this play to absolute perfection.

Kramer was the key blocker in one of the most famous playbook plays ever.

~~~~~~~~~~~
Rushing Offense
~~~~~~~~~~~

Kramer blocked for some of the best rushing offenses of the time. He led some backs to very, very good seasons. Leading Packer rusher during Kramer's years:

Year Rusher Attempts Yards YPA TD NFL Rank
1958 Paul Hornung 69 310 4.5 2 26
1959 Paul Hornung 152 681 4.5 7 8
1960 Jim Taylor 230 1,101 4.8 11 2
1961 Jim Taylor 243 1,307 5.4 15 2
1962 Jim Taylor 272 1,474 5.4 19 1
1963 Jim Taylor 248 1,018 4.1 9 2
1964 Jim Taylor 235 1,169 5.0 12 2
1965 Jim Taylor 207 734 3.5 4 5
1966 Jim Taylor 204 705 3.5 4 10
1967 Jim Grabowski 120 466 3.9 2 19
1968 Donny Anderson 170 761 4.5 5 9

In seven of Kramer's eleven seasons, the Packers' rushing offense was one of the top five in the NFL and three more of those seasons were in the top ten. Only two seasons in his entire career was the rushing offense outside of the top ten. That is consistency and excellence at its finest.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Versatility and Clutch Performance
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Don't think Kramer's performance at right guard warrants a Hall of Fame plaque? Then listen to this. Kramer was not just an offensive lineman, he was a key part to Green Bay's special teams unit as the place kicker.

And don't assume that Kramer was a below average kicker. He actually led the league in field goal percentage in 1962 and he made 94.7% of his career extra-point attempts. Kramer also won games for his team with field goals, important games. In the 1962 NFL Championship, Kramer won the game with two late field goals after hitting one earlier in the game, a game which the Packers won by just nine points.

There is no reason for Kramer to not be in the Hall of Fame. Get him in there, sportswriters!
Teleroboxer

Con

My opponent contends that Jerry Kramer should be in the NFL Hall of Fame.

I refute this contention as absurd.

Counter-arguments:

I. There is simply no such thing as an "NFL Hall of Fame." There is a "Pro Football Hall of Fame," which places an emphasis on the NFL, but it is neither owned by nor exclusively dedicated to the NFL. (1) As such, Pro's contention makes no sense.

II. Even if my opponent were referring to the Pro Football Hall of Fame in his contention, Jerry Kramer has never been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, therefore Jerry Kramer does not belong in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. (2) Only individuals who have been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame should in fact be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. (3)

Citations:

1. http://www.profootballhof.com...
2. http://www.profootballhof.com...
3. http://www.profootballhof.com...
Debate Round No. 1
TBD3

Pro

Thank you for accepting this and posting an argument.

You said:
"I. There is simply no such thing as an "NFL Hall of Fame." There is a "Pro Football Hall of Fame," which places an emphasis on the NFL, but it is neither owned by nor exclusively dedicated to the NFL. As such, Pro's contention makes no sense."

You're right, it is officially the Pro Football Hall of Fame. However, the Pro Football Hall of Fame has an emphasis on football in the United States.

What is the primary football league in the Unites States? The National Football League (NFL).

There is only one player in the entire Pro Football Hall of Fame who never played in the NFL. Billy Shaw is the only Pro Football Hall of Famer to never play in the NFL. Instead he played for the Buffalo Bills before the AFL-NFL merger (1). Therefore, Shaw technically played for a non-NFL team, but that same team later joined the NFL.

Since the only player in the Hall of Fame who did not officially play in the NFL played for a team that later did join the NFL, it is not absurd to call the Pro Football Hall of Fame the NFL Hall of Fame.

You said:
"II. Even if my opponent were referring to the Pro Football Hall of Fame in his contention, Jerry Kramer has never been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, therefore Jerry Kramer does not belong in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Only individuals who have been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame should in fact be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame."

Should (auxiliary verb):
1. pt. of shall.
2. (used to express condition): Were he to arrive, I should be pleased.
3. must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that.
4. would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt): I should think you would apologize.(2)

The definition of "should" that I used in this debate is "ought". "Ought" is another auxiliary verb, which can be "used to express duty or moral obligation" (3).

My stance is that it is the duty or obligation of those who vote for the Pro Football Hall of Fame to induct Jerry Kramer into said Hall of Fame. They "should" do this.

Citations:
1. http://www.profootballhof.com...
2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
3. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Teleroboxer

Con

My opponent's original contention is as follows:

"Jerry Kramer should be in the NFL Hall of Fame."

When I pointed out the absurdity of this contention, my opponent declared the following:

"The definition of 'should' that I used in this debate is 'ought'. 'Ought' is another auxiliary verb, which can be 'used to express duty or moral obligation' ... My stance is that it is the duty or obligation of those who vote for the Pro Football Hall of Fame to induct Jerry Kramer into said Hall of Fame. They 'should' do this."

Notice the subtle changes in language that my opponent has attempted to slip by you, dear reader:

"My stance is that it is the duty or obligation of those who vote for the Pro Football Hall of Fame to induct Jerry Kramer into said Hall of Fame."

I. Here he has changed the wording "NFL Hall of Fame," an apparently fictional entity, into "Pro Football Hall of Fame." If the two were truly synonymous, why would he feel the need to modify his phrasing? Thus, aside from being utterly incapable of demonstrating that they are in fact synonymous when they are in fact not, he has inadvertently conceded the point by changing the language.

II. Even if we were for amusement's sake to reword the verb "should," to a phrase such as "has a duty or moral obligation to be," the original contention comes out thusly: "Jerry Kramer has a duty or moral obligation to be in the Hall of Fame." This is essentially the exact same contention as before the rewording!

In conclusion, Pro's contention remains absurd, for the same reasons expressed in the previous round.

I yield the floor.
Debate Round No. 2
TBD3

Pro

I have to say, I am very disappointed by this site.

This is not what I was looking for at all.

Everything here is about semantics. I am not able to actually debate sports because every little detail is nit-picked.

I will most likely never come on here again.

Enjoy the win.
Teleroboxer

Con

I thank my opponent for this lively and thought-provoking debate.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Teleroboxer 7 years ago
Teleroboxer
Oh, come on. A guy named philosphical [sic] voted against me on spelling and grammar? Give me a break.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
TBD3TeleroboxerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by TBD3 7 years ago
TBD3
TBD3TeleroboxerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by philosphical 7 years ago
philosphical
TBD3TeleroboxerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Teleroboxer 7 years ago
Teleroboxer
TBD3TeleroboxerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07