There are two bones of contention coming out of the meeting -- at least that I've heard from readers, tweeters and other writers: the Bill Parcells snub and the logjam at wide receiver. I can't divulge conversations from the room; that's against Hall policy. It's also against Hall policy to divulge your vote. Now, I believe in transparency, but I'll follow the Hall's directives as long as I'm an active member of the committee. But as a voter, I always have felt comfortable saying I've supported one candidate or the other.
Re the wideouts: It's become obvious there's a logjam between the three eligible receivers -- Andre Reed, Cris Carter and Tim Brown. I have supported Carter consistently; I believe he's the best boundary receiver of all time. (That was a phrase coined by former Niner Randy Cross that I stole because it's so appropriate. Carter was superb at catching the ball at the very edge of the sideline before his feet hit the white of the sideline.) Reed has some staunch supporters. Carter has his. Brown too. But I think it's coming down to Carter and Reed.
In the same number of games with mostly lesser quarterbacks than Reed had, Carter caught 150 more passes for 43 more touchdowns. That carries a lot of weight with me. But I understand the conflict here. Reed was a very good receiver in his own right. I just feel Carter's better from a historical perspective. Obviously, if 80 percent of voters felt the way I feel, Carter would be in. I was asked in the last 36 hours what's going to change at receiver. I don't know. I'm not sure anything will change.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/02/06/superbowl46/index.html
--
Please don't go. The Drones need you.