2014 Hall of Famers announced - '15 class now being discussed (1 Viewer)

[Ketamine Dreams]

What happened to Marvin Harrison?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/918484-11-nfl-legacies-ruined-by-off-the-field-transgressions/page/3

Exactly. There was also a Pro Bowl incident where Harrison's associates roughed up a couple people. The guy is a DB. Does that exclude him from getting in? No, he'll get in, butIMO he shouldn't.

Link?Harrison hasn't even been questioned by detectives IIRC.

Yet he is preceded into the hall by Reed? What a joke.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/114971-marvin-harrison-the-nfls-quiet-bad-boy-wide-receiver

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3827402

edited to remove dead link

 

[voiceofunreason]

Charles Haley not being in is an embarrassment. He was absolutely unblockable and he has 5 super bowl rings. The process needs to be changed. Basically there are a bunch of reporters voting, half of which know less than my wife does about football. It's not easy to find a fair way to do it but you need more knowledgeable people doing something this important. It's not the probowl.

 

[Fariq]

He's still more deserving than Namath or Swann.

Namath was a league MVP (1968 AFL), multiple time All-AFL or All-NFL performer, and transcended the sport.Swann was a multiple-time All-NFL receiver, was rated in the top three at WR for a half decade by the main scouting service of the time and got it done in the postseason.

Both Namath and Swann were more impactful than Guy. It is ignorant for you to knock the candidacies of Namath and Swann. There are busts of numerous Hall of Famers who, if they fell on you, you would not know the player depicted.

Knock the following Hall of Famers before ripping Namath and Swann-

Millner

Wojciechowicz

Mack

Wright

Reed

Slater

E. Thomas

Long

J. Smith

Carson

LeBeau

John Henry Johnson

C. Sanders

McAfee

S. Jones

Namath wasn't that good. Pulling mad tail is great, but shouldn't have been the reason he made the HOF, and that was his best achievement.

He was league MVP in 1968. He was a 1st team All-AFL and All-NFL QB in a couple seasons.He is a unique choice for induction, but not a wrong one. His impact on the sport was huge. His body of work can be considered among the bottom rung of Hall of Famers, but it is not as if he is an undecorated player like Andre Reed (unlike Namath, Reed was never a 1st team all-pro and Reed had to only be considered 2nd best to get a 1st team WR nod; Namath was considered the best QB in his league in 1968 and 1972).

There were better players in 1968, Len Dawson to start with. He is known for a single moment of NFL history and that's it. He's like the original David Tyree.

Namath was on the official All-AFL first team, but I will go with your opinion. Namath was clearly a no-talent bum who accomplished nothing.

 

[az_prof]

Guy averaged 42.4 on his kicks over 14 seasons. Total yardage: 44, 493.

His career average puts him at 92 on the all time list--not exactly stellar.

The guys above him span all different eras--it isn't like the rules for punting changed.

To put it in perspective, Shane Lechler averaged 47.6 over 13 seasons.

Sammy Baugh, who is rightly in, was BOTH a QB and a punter and his punting average from back in the day before Guy was 45.1

From his own era, Jerrel Wilson, has a higher average (43.0) and more total yards, 46,139. He was on the 69 Chiefs Super Bowl team. Why isn't he in the HOF?

In terms of total punting yards in a career, Guy is 16.

What about Sean Lendeta? He is number two on the all time punting yardage, has a better career punting average (43.3), and was on two SB teams.

He happened to be a good punter for a SB team and played a long time. Congratulations: you're in the HOF.

 

[CalBear]

He happened to be a good punter for a SB team and played a long time. Congratulations: you're in the HOF.

The real story is he was a good punter for John Madden, who for many years was the most powerful source of NFL mythology. The reality is that Guy was just a guy.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

He's still more deserving than Namath or Swann.

Namath was a league MVP (1968 AFL), multiple time All-AFL or All-NFL performer, and transcended the sport.Swann was a multiple-time All-NFL receiver, was rated in the top three at WR for a half decade by the main scouting service of the time and got it done in the postseason.

Both Namath and Swann were more impactful than Guy. It is ignorant for you to knock the candidacies of Namath and Swann. There are busts of numerous Hall of Famers who, if they fell on you, you would not know the player depicted.

Knock the following Hall of Famers before ripping Namath and Swann-

Millner

Wojciechowicz

Mack

Wright

Reed

Slater

E. Thomas

Long

J. Smith

Carson

LeBeau

John Henry Johnson

C. Sanders

McAfee

S. Jones

Namath wasn't that good. Pulling mad tail is great, but shouldn't have been the reason he made the HOF, and that was his best achievement.

He was league MVP in 1968. He was a 1st team All-AFL and All-NFL QB in a couple seasons.He is a unique choice for induction, but not a wrong one. His impact on the sport was huge. His body of work can be considered among the bottom rung of Hall of Famers, but it is not as if he is an undecorated player like Andre Reed (unlike Namath, Reed was never a 1st team all-pro and Reed had to only be considered 2nd best to get a 1st team WR nod; Namath was considered the best QB in his league in 1968 and 1972).

There were better players in 1968, Len Dawson to start with. He is known for a single moment of NFL history and that's it. He's like the original David Tyree.

Namath was on the official All-AFL first team, but I will go with your opinion. Namath was clearly a no-talent bum who accomplished nothing.

Don't throw a fit. I never said he had no talent. He did however ride along for a win. Maybe not David Tyree, but a Trent Dilfer David Tyree lovechild.

 

[gump]

He's still more deserving than Namath or Swann.

Namath was a league MVP (1968 AFL), multiple time All-AFL or All-NFL performer, and transcended the sport.Swann was a multiple-time All-NFL receiver, was rated in the top three at WR for a half decade by the main scouting service of the time and got it done in the postseason.

Both Namath and Swann were more impactful than Guy. It is ignorant for you to knock the candidacies of Namath and Swann. There are busts of numerous Hall of Famers who, if they fell on you, you would not know the player depicted.

Knock the following Hall of Famers before ripping Namath and Swann-

Millner

Wojciechowicz

Mack

Wright

Reed

Slater

E. Thomas

Long

J. Smith

Carson

LeBeau

John Henry Johnson

C. Sanders

McAfee

S. Jones

Namath wasn't that good. Pulling mad tail is great, but shouldn't have been the reason he made the HOF, and that was his best achievement.

He was league MVP in 1968. He was a 1st team All-AFL and All-NFL QB in a couple seasons.He is a unique choice for induction, but not a wrong one. His impact on the sport was huge. His body of work can be considered among the bottom rung of Hall of Famers, but it is not as if he is an undecorated player like Andre Reed (unlike Namath, Reed was never a 1st team all-pro and Reed had to only be considered 2nd best to get a 1st team WR nod; Namath was considered the best QB in his league in 1968 and 1972).

There were better players in 1968, Len Dawson to start with. He is known for a single moment of NFL history and that's it. He's like the original David Tyree.

He may have had the strongest arm the NFL had ever seen at that point in the leagues history. You hear many players talk about the sound his throws made, which they hadn't heard before.

He was also a fantastic running QB, before his knee surgeries...Bear Bryant said he was the best athlete he had ever seen.

Almost identical player to David Tyree.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Is it true that no punt of Guy's was ever returned for a TD?

 

[MoveToSkypager]

He's still more deserving than Namath or Swann.

Namath was a league MVP (1968 AFL), multiple time All-AFL or All-NFL performer, and transcended the sport.Swann was a multiple-time All-NFL receiver, was rated in the top three at WR for a half decade by the main scouting service of the time and got it done in the postseason.

Both Namath and Swann were more impactful than Guy. It is ignorant for you to knock the candidacies of Namath and Swann. There are busts of numerous Hall of Famers who, if they fell on you, you would not know the player depicted.

Knock the following Hall of Famers before ripping Namath and Swann-

Millner

Wojciechowicz

Mack

Wright

Reed

Slater

E. Thomas

Long

J. Smith

Carson

LeBeau

John Henry Johnson

C. Sanders

McAfee

S. Jones

Namath wasn't that good. Pulling mad tail is great, but shouldn't have been the reason he made the HOF, and that was his best achievement.

He was league MVP in 1968. He was a 1st team All-AFL and All-NFL QB in a couple seasons.He is a unique choice for induction, but not a wrong one. His impact on the sport was huge. His body of work can be considered among the bottom rung of Hall of Famers, but it is not as if he is an undecorated player like Andre Reed (unlike Namath, Reed was never a 1st team all-pro and Reed had to only be considered 2nd best to get a 1st team WR nod; Namath was considered the best QB in his league in 1968 and 1972).

There were better players in 1968, Len Dawson to start with. He is known for a single moment of NFL history and that's it. He's like the original David Tyree.

He may have had the strongest arm the NFL had ever seen at that point in the leagues history. You hear many players talk about the sound his throws made, which they hadn't heard before.

He was also a fantastic running QB, before his knee surgeries...Bear Bryant said he was the best athlete he had ever seen.

Almost identical player to David Tyree.

Cool. Strong arm + Bear Bryant liked him (which is why you like him go figure) + ####ty stats even for his day + being carried to a superbowl win = HOF. Can the bar get any lower?

 

[MarshallRob]

Is it true that no punt of Guy's was ever returned for a TD?

I believe he had 4 returned for TD's in his career.

 

[gump]

He's still more deserving than Namath or Swann.

Namath was a league MVP (1968 AFL), multiple time All-AFL or All-NFL performer, and transcended the sport.Swann was a multiple-time All-NFL receiver, was rated in the top three at WR for a half decade by the main scouting service of the time and got it done in the postseason.

Both Namath and Swann were more impactful than Guy. It is ignorant for you to knock the candidacies of Namath and Swann. There are busts of numerous Hall of Famers who, if they fell on you, you would not know the player depicted.

Knock the following Hall of Famers before ripping Namath and Swann-

Millner

Wojciechowicz

Mack

Wright

Reed

Slater

E. Thomas

Long

J. Smith

Carson

LeBeau

John Henry Johnson

C. Sanders

McAfee

S. Jones

Namath wasn't that good. Pulling mad tail is great, but shouldn't have been the reason he made the HOF, and that was his best achievement.

He was league MVP in 1968. He was a 1st team All-AFL and All-NFL QB in a couple seasons.He is a unique choice for induction, but not a wrong one. His impact on the sport was huge. His body of work can be considered among the bottom rung of Hall of Famers, but it is not as if he is an undecorated player like Andre Reed (unlike Namath, Reed was never a 1st team all-pro and Reed had to only be considered 2nd best to get a 1st team WR nod; Namath was considered the best QB in his league in 1968 and 1972).

There were better players in 1968, Len Dawson to start with. He is known for a single moment of NFL history and that's it. He's like the original David Tyree.

He may have had the strongest arm the NFL had ever seen at that point in the leagues history. You hear many players talk about the sound his throws made, which they hadn't heard before.He was also a fantastic running QB, before his knee surgeries...Bear Bryant said he was the best athlete he had ever seen.

Almost identical player to David Tyree.

Cool. Strong arm + Bear Bryant liked him (which is why you like him go figure) + ####ty stats even for his day + being carried to a superbowl win = HOF. Can the bar get any lower?

I assumed you knew he rode the strongest arm the NFL had ever seen to the most yards passing in a season the NFL had ever seen...but then again, you compared him to David Tyree.

I was responding to your post about him only being known for one moment...which isn't true at all.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

He's still more deserving than Namath or Swann.

Namath was a league MVP (1968 AFL), multiple time All-AFL or All-NFL performer, and transcended the sport.Swann was a multiple-time All-NFL receiver, was rated in the top three at WR for a half decade by the main scouting service of the time and got it done in the postseason.

Both Namath and Swann were more impactful than Guy. It is ignorant for you to knock the candidacies of Namath and Swann. There are busts of numerous Hall of Famers who, if they fell on you, you would not know the player depicted.

Knock the following Hall of Famers before ripping Namath and Swann-

Millner

Wojciechowicz

Mack

Wright

Reed

Slater

E. Thomas

Long

J. Smith

Carson

LeBeau

John Henry Johnson

C. Sanders

McAfee

S. Jones

Namath wasn't that good. Pulling mad tail is great, but shouldn't have been the reason he made the HOF, and that was his best achievement.

He was league MVP in 1968. He was a 1st team All-AFL and All-NFL QB in a couple seasons.He is a unique choice for induction, but not a wrong one. His impact on the sport was huge. His body of work can be considered among the bottom rung of Hall of Famers, but it is not as if he is an undecorated player like Andre Reed (unlike Namath, Reed was never a 1st team all-pro and Reed had to only be considered 2nd best to get a 1st team WR nod; Namath was considered the best QB in his league in 1968 and 1972).

There were better players in 1968, Len Dawson to start with. He is known for a single moment of NFL history and that's it. He's like the original David Tyree.

He may have had the strongest arm the NFL had ever seen at that point in the leagues history. You hear many players talk about the sound his throws made, which they hadn't heard before.He was also a fantastic running QB, before his knee surgeries...Bear Bryant said he was the best athlete he had ever seen.

Almost identical player to David Tyree.

Cool. Strong arm + Bear Bryant liked him (which is why you like him go figure) + ####ty stats even for his day + being carried to a superbowl win = HOF. Can the bar get any lower?

I assumed you knew he rode the strongest arm the NFL had ever seen to the most yards passing in a season the NFL had ever seen...but then again, you compared him to David Tyree.

I was responding to your post about him only being known for one moment...which isn't true at all.

He is known for one moment. He isn't known for throwing for a lot of yards in nineteensixtynoonecares. The strong arm thing is laughable. You shouldn't even bring that up.

 

[gump]

He's still more deserving than Namath or Swann.

Namath was a league MVP (1968 AFL), multiple time All-AFL or All-NFL performer, and transcended the sport.Swann was a multiple-time All-NFL receiver, was rated in the top three at WR for a half decade by the main scouting service of the time and got it done in the postseason.

Both Namath and Swann were more impactful than Guy. It is ignorant for you to knock the candidacies of Namath and Swann. There are busts of numerous Hall of Famers who, if they fell on you, you would not know the player depicted.

Knock the following Hall of Famers before ripping Namath and Swann-

Millner

Wojciechowicz

Mack

Wright

Reed

Slater

E. Thomas

Long

J. Smith

Carson

LeBeau

John Henry Johnson

C. Sanders

McAfee

S. Jones

Namath wasn't that good. Pulling mad tail is great, but shouldn't have been the reason he made the HOF, and that was his best achievement.

He was league MVP in 1968. He was a 1st team All-AFL and All-NFL QB in a couple seasons.He is a unique choice for induction, but not a wrong one. His impact on the sport was huge. His body of work can be considered among the bottom rung of Hall of Famers, but it is not as if he is an undecorated player like Andre Reed (unlike Namath, Reed was never a 1st team all-pro and Reed had to only be considered 2nd best to get a 1st team WR nod; Namath was considered the best QB in his league in 1968 and 1972).

There were better players in 1968, Len Dawson to start with. He is known for a single moment of NFL history and that's it. He's like the original David Tyree.

He may have had the strongest arm the NFL had ever seen at that point in the leagues history. You hear many players talk about the sound his throws made, which they hadn't heard before.He was also a fantastic running QB, before his knee surgeries...Bear Bryant said he was the best athlete he had ever seen.

Almost identical player to David Tyree.

Cool. Strong arm + Bear Bryant liked him (which is why you like him go figure) + ####ty stats even for his day + being carried to a superbowl win = HOF. Can the bar get any lower?

I assumed you knew he rode the strongest arm the NFL had ever seen to the most yards passing in a season the NFL had ever seen...but then again, you compared him to David Tyree.I was responding to your post about him only being known for one moment...which isn't true at all.

He is known for one moment. He isn't known for throwing for a lot of yards in nineteensixtynoonecares. The strong arm thing is laughable. You shouldn't even bring that up.

You said 'only' known for one moment....which is obviously different 'known for one moment'. As has been pointed out many times now in this thread, Namath accomplished plenty. And one of the things he is known for by people who followed the NFL in that era was his ridiculous arm.

 

[Raider Nation]

He's still more deserving than Namath or Swann.

Namath was a league MVP (1968 AFL), multiple time All-AFL or All-NFL performer, and transcended the sport.Swann was a multiple-time All-NFL receiver, was rated in the top three at WR for a half decade by the main scouting service of the time and got it done in the postseason.

Both Namath and Swann were more impactful than Guy. It is ignorant for you to knock the candidacies of Namath and Swann. There are busts of numerous Hall of Famers who, if they fell on you, you would not know the player depicted.

Knock the following Hall of Famers before ripping Namath and Swann-

Millner

Wojciechowicz

Mack

Wright

Reed

Slater

E. Thomas

Long

J. Smith

Carson

LeBeau

John Henry Johnson

C. Sanders

McAfee

S. Jones

Namath wasn't that good. Pulling mad tail is great, but shouldn't have been the reason he made the HOF, and that was his best achievement.

He was league MVP in 1968. He was a 1st team All-AFL and All-NFL QB in a couple seasons.He is a unique choice for induction, but not a wrong one. His impact on the sport was huge. His body of work can be considered among the bottom rung of Hall of Famers, but it is not as if he is an undecorated player like Andre Reed (unlike Namath, Reed was never a 1st team all-pro and Reed had to only be considered 2nd best to get a 1st team WR nod; Namath was considered the best QB in his league in 1968 and 1972).

There were better players in 1968, Len Dawson to start with. He is known for a single moment of NFL history and that's it. He's like the original David Tyree.

He may have had the strongest arm the NFL had ever seen at that point in the leagues history. You hear many players talk about the sound his throws made, which they hadn't heard before.He was also a fantastic running QB, before his knee surgeries...Bear Bryant said he was the best athlete he had ever seen.

Almost identical player to David Tyree.

Cool. Strong arm + Bear Bryant liked him (which is why you like him go figure) + ####ty stats even for his day + being carried to a superbowl win = HOF. Can the bar get any lower?

I assumed you knew he rode the strongest arm the NFL had ever seen to the most yards passing in a season the NFL had ever seen...but then again, you compared him to David Tyree.I was responding to your post about him only being known for one moment...which isn't true at all.

He is known for one moment. He isn't known for throwing for a lot of yards in nineteensixtynoonecares. The strong arm thing is laughable. You shouldn't even bring that up.

You said 'only' known for one moment....which is obviously different 'known for one moment'. As has been pointed out many times now in this thread, Namath accomplished plenty. And one of the things he is known for by people who followed the NFL in that era was his ridiculous arm.

Yeah, he had a rocket launcher.

 

[Raider Nation]

I don't like Namath-have met him a few times.

Watching highlight half hour shows, his arrogance is disturbingly calm almost austin powers like and the highlights are not that great.

If you grew up in NJ in 70s or 80s, you saw Namath highlights.

He's one that puzzles me. It's like a joke I just don't understand, I watch and am underwhelmed to say the least.

He was one of the best or most marketable sports figures in advertising and all. People (not me) do seem to turn their head toward the TV when he comes on like "ooh there's Joe."

Feel free to hit me with some especially good youtube highlight links, but I'm awfully curious if anyone else feels the same as I.

Pretty much. The numbers don't add up.

Namath is best known for leading his New York Jets to victory in Super Bowl III after guaranteeing a win against the heavily favored Baltimore Colts. While that is one of the greatest moments in NFL history, it shouldn't be enough to get into the Hall. Looking at Namath's numbers, one wonders just how a quarterback with his numbers could get in. Namath threw more interceptions than touchdowns (220-173) and only threw more touchdown than interceptions in two of his thirteen seasons. His completion percentage (50.1) and quarterback rating (65.5) are downright pedestrian.

Namath defenders will say that it was a different game, and those statistics were low for all quarterbacks. Well, maybe so, but over the course of Namath's career (65-77), Namath ranks 33rd in completion percentage and 28th in quarterback rating amongst quarterbacks with over 1000 attempts. Namath ranks behind such legends as Randy Johnson, Bill Munson, and Bob Berry. Bottom line, Namath got in thanks more to the perception that he was a great quarterback rather than reality.

Why can't people just call this one like it is.... he made a ballsy guarantee of victory as 19-point underdogs against a "superior" NFL team, and he cashed in. It gave the AFL unexpected credibility (as did KC's victory the following season). If that's why he's in the HOF, fine. But put him in as a contributor, which he unquestionably was.

He made the guarantee, but he didn't make the win. What he did was essentially place a bet with someone else's money. That's not ballsy to me.

I don't want to keep beating our heads against the wall for days over Namath (though I'll take the blame for starting it), but he didn't know he wouldn't have to carry the team when he made the guarantee. Matt Snell rushing for 121 yards against a great defense, and Baltimore throwing four picks has a way of changing a game plan.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Here's how I would vote:

Michael Strahan

Derrick Brooks

Aeneas Williams

Will Shields

Marvin Harrison

I also think first timers Rodney Harrison, Walter Jones, and Zach Thomas are deserving, but they don't make my cut this year.


Here's how I expect the vote to end up:

Michael Strahan

Derrick Brooks

Walter Jones

Jerome Bettis

Tony Dungy

So the non-senior class is Strahan, Brooks, Williams, Jones, and Reed. Not sure why people would bash this class. I think they got 3 right, and Jones is clearly worthy; I could have flip-flopped him with Shields in my preferred class and been fine with it.

Reed seems like a weak choice. First off, I think Harrison should have been the nobrainer choice if a WR was to be chosen. But, even if not, IMO Tim Brown is more deserving than Reed.

I'm particularly pleased that Williams made it. He has seemed like an underappreciated candidate for quite some time, but he is very deserving IMO.

I don't know much about Humphrey, but electing Guy is a joke. We've had the discussion numerous times in this forum. A punter's impact cannot compare to the impact of guys who played offense and defense, and Guy was far from the best punter of all time. Big on that selection.

I'm thrilled that the HoF elected Ray Guy. There are few enough Seniors nominees as it is, and if they hadn't elected Guy, the committee just would have nominated him again (see: Hayes, Bob). In the standard Hall process, electing a guy winds up costing someone else a place. In the Seniors' process, NOT electing a guy often winds up costing someone else a place, instead.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Nice work by Guy improving his game in the 30 years since he retired.

All the way down to 89th all time in punting average!

Embarrassing post. Get your nose out of the stat books and actually watch a football game some time.

I watch plenty of games. I can't remember a single one where the guy punting mattered.

I can think of one.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Tasker should be in before any punter, FWIW.

Disagreed. In terms of impact on the game by special teamers, I think it goes as follows:

1. Returners

2. Placekickers

3. Punters

4. Gunners

If you want to elect a special teamer, start with Upchurch, not Tasker.

 

[Adam Harstad]

He's still more deserving than Namath or Swann.

A million times no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, times infinity. How can a guy say in one post "it's not all about the numbers" and then say in the next "well, he's better than Joe Namath, rite? 'Cause have you seen his numbers? Rite?" For further reading on how everyone is laughably wrong about Joe Namath, see this.

Guy's got a better case than Joiner, though. So if nothing else, he's not the most undeserving player in the entire Hall of Fame.

 

[Bri]

Guy averaged 42.4 on his kicks over 14 seasons. Total yardage: 44, 493.

His career average puts him at 92 on the all time list--not exactly stellar.

The guys above him span all different eras--it isn't like the rules for punting changed.

To put it in perspective, Shane Lechler averaged 47.6 over 13 seasons.

Sammy Baugh, who is rightly in, was BOTH a QB and a punter and his punting average from back in the day before Guy was 45.1

From his own era, Jerrel Wilson, has a higher average (43.0) and more total yards, 46,139. He was on the 69 Chiefs Super Bowl team. Why isn't he in the HOF?

In terms of total punting yards in a career, Guy is 16.

What about Sean Lendeta? He is number two on the all time punting yardage, has a better career punting average (43.3), and was on two SB teams.

He happened to be a good punter for a SB team and played a long time. Congratulations: you're in the HOF.

Ask a teenager what a coffin corner is.

Some stuff with punters you're not going to get from stats. Also, some of these placement punt are not them kicking for distance.

Guy and Landeta could put a ball exactly where the coach wanted them to. Going against a top return guy, to have it bounce and go OB was a nice strategy. Pinning a team inside the five with a top defense was also.

I can't tell you who Mike Martz' punter was with their style of offense. A running grind it out offense backed by a great D, tends to dramatically increase a punter's value.

I don't know about them being in the hall, I was asking earlier looking for opinions. I've never noticed people on these boards wanting a kicker or punter in. I will say that if it's a position there should be members in the hall. So I suppose I think some are tough to convince about these types.

I don't know that many FBs are in the hall other than those that happened to be a RB that sometimes played FB. I don't like this. In my experience, few positions are as endearing to "true" football fans as the fullback. If you ask (insert team here) about some FB that was real good for them, chances are he's a favorite and/or very much appreciated by that fan. We wouldn't really have much of stats to go by for comparison but take Moose for example-tell me he wasn't one of the best at his position and that Troy and Emmitt and Irvin would have been as good if he wasn't blocking so well. Have you seen him "blow someone up?" Sam Gash was a personal fave of mine-wherever he went, the running game improved. Maurice Carthon was similar to these guys too. I know some didn't care for him as an OC later in life, but he was quite the blocker. To ramble about him, he had to pickup whomever was getting after Simms from the excellent Ds in the 80s. Nail a key block on one of the Bears vaunted 4-6 D or maybe hit Haley or Lott...he didn't exactly have easy targets to block and I feel I can easily say most FBs couldn't do what he did.

In today's NFL, FBs are not as important or vital on every team. Some drafts a FB isn't drafted, sometimes the top college FB goes in like the fifth round. Still for as long as I can remember, if you were (healthy and) a top FB you always found work in the league and fans loved ya. Many, oh so many, only last a few years so it's considerable when one plays 10 years.

 

[Bri]

Should include Reggie Roby. Is it because of him? We used to have hang time on the TV and he was quite unique. I think he started that trend.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Ray Guy getting in is an embarrassment. How does a punter get in over so many other deserving players who play in the trenches?

Guy getting the Seniors' nomination was an embarrassment. Once he had it, there was no rational choice except to elect him so the Seniors Committee can get back to nominating real, deserving players rather than wasting more picks on a punter in the future.

 

[rascal]

####### ridiculous that a punter gets in while guys like Mecklenburg, Gradishar, Atwater, and TD still aren't in. ####### east bias bull ####.

 

[Fariq]

He's still more deserving than Namath or Swann.

Namath was a league MVP (1968 AFL), multiple time All-AFL or All-NFL performer, and transcended the sport.Swann was a multiple-time All-NFL receiver, was rated in the top three at WR for a half decade by the main scouting service of the time and got it done in the postseason.

Both Namath and Swann were more impactful than Guy. It is ignorant for you to knock the candidacies of Namath and Swann. There are busts of numerous Hall of Famers who, if they fell on you, you would not know the player depicted.

Knock the following Hall of Famers before ripping Namath and Swann-

Millner

Wojciechowicz

Mack

Wright

Reed

Slater

E. Thomas

Long

J. Smith

Carson

LeBeau

John Henry Johnson

C. Sanders

McAfee

S. Jones

Namath wasn't that good. Pulling mad tail is great, but shouldn't have been the reason he made the HOF, and that was his best achievement.

He was league MVP in 1968. He was a 1st team All-AFL and All-NFL QB in a couple seasons.He is a unique choice for induction, but not a wrong one. His impact on the sport was huge. His body of work can be considered among the bottom rung of Hall of Famers, but it is not as if he is an undecorated player like Andre Reed (unlike Namath, Reed was never a 1st team all-pro and Reed had to only be considered 2nd best to get a 1st team WR nod; Namath was considered the best QB in his league in 1968 and 1972).

There were better players in 1968, Len Dawson to start with. He is known for a single moment of NFL history and that's it. He's like the original David Tyree.

He may have had the strongest arm the NFL had ever seen at that point in the leagues history. You hear many players talk about the sound his throws made, which they hadn't heard before.He was also a fantastic running QB, before his knee surgeries...Bear Bryant said he was the best athlete he had ever seen.

Almost identical player to David Tyree.

Cool. Strong arm + Bear Bryant liked him (which is why you like him go figure) + ####ty stats even for his day + being carried to a superbowl win = HOF. Can the bar get any lower?

I assumed you knew he rode the strongest arm the NFL had ever seen to the most yards passing in a season the NFL had ever seen...but then again, you compared him to David Tyree.I was responding to your post about him only being known for one moment...which isn't true at all.

He is known for one moment. He isn't known for throwing for a lot of yards in nineteensixtynoonecares. The strong arm thing is laughable. You shouldn't even bring that up.

Actually, he is known for stats too. He was the first QB to pass for over 4,000 yards in a season. What I will present to you is just a sidebar. Since you have proven to be totally ignorant I am sure you are not familiar with his stats vs the Colts in 1972-

Again, he didn't make the Hall of Fame for this, but these numbers are insane-

Namath vs the Colts in 1972-

20 completions, 724 yards, 8 TDs

 

[Fariq]

####### ridiculous that a punter gets in while guys like Mecklenburg, Gradishar, Atwater, and TD still aren't in. ####### east bias bull ####.

Guy played for the Patriots, Eagles, Jets or Giants?

Oh, oh. What am I thinking. He played on the west coast for the Raiders. ####### east coast bias!

 

[MoveToSkypager]

He's still more deserving than Namath or Swann.

Namath was a league MVP (1968 AFL), multiple time All-AFL or All-NFL performer, and transcended the sport.Swann was a multiple-time All-NFL receiver, was rated in the top three at WR for a half decade by the main scouting service of the time and got it done in the postseason.

Both Namath and Swann were more impactful than Guy. It is ignorant for you to knock the candidacies of Namath and Swann. There are busts of numerous Hall of Famers who, if they fell on you, you would not know the player depicted.

Knock the following Hall of Famers before ripping Namath and Swann-

Millner

Wojciechowicz

Mack

Wright

Reed

Slater

E. Thomas

Long

J. Smith

Carson

LeBeau

John Henry Johnson

C. Sanders

McAfee

S. Jones

Namath wasn't that good. Pulling mad tail is great, but shouldn't have been the reason he made the HOF, and that was his best achievement.

He was league MVP in 1968. He was a 1st team All-AFL and All-NFL QB in a couple seasons.He is a unique choice for induction, but not a wrong one. His impact on the sport was huge. His body of work can be considered among the bottom rung of Hall of Famers, but it is not as if he is an undecorated player like Andre Reed (unlike Namath, Reed was never a 1st team all-pro and Reed had to only be considered 2nd best to get a 1st team WR nod; Namath was considered the best QB in his league in 1968 and 1972).

There were better players in 1968, Len Dawson to start with. He is known for a single moment of NFL history and that's it. He's like the original David Tyree.

He may have had the strongest arm the NFL had ever seen at that point in the leagues history. You hear many players talk about the sound his throws made, which they hadn't heard before.He was also a fantastic running QB, before his knee surgeries...Bear Bryant said he was the best athlete he had ever seen.

Almost identical player to David Tyree.

Cool. Strong arm + Bear Bryant liked him (which is why you like him go figure) + ####ty stats even for his day + being carried to a superbowl win = HOF. Can the bar get any lower?

I assumed you knew he rode the strongest arm the NFL had ever seen to the most yards passing in a season the NFL had ever seen...but then again, you compared him to David Tyree.I was responding to your post about him only being known for one moment...which isn't true at all.

He is known for one moment. He isn't known for throwing for a lot of yards in nineteensixtynoonecares. The strong arm thing is laughable. You shouldn't even bring that up.

Actually, he is known for stats too. He was the first QB to pass for over 4,000 yards in a season.What I will present to you is just a sidebar. Since you have proven to be totally ignorant I am sure you are not familiar with his stats vs the Colts in 1972-

Again, he didn't make the Hall of Fame for this, but these numbers are insane-

Namath vs the Colts in 1972-

20 completions, 724 yards, 8 TDs

;yawn: Alex Smith had a great game one too.

 

[Ballstein]

Anyone watching tonight?

TD, Coryell didn't make the finalist list.

Dungy in. Tim Brown, Andre Reed, Marvin Harrison in.

How is Dungy in over Coryell?

Rooney rule

 

[Fariq]

Yeah, it is official now. You are trolling and have nothing to offer. Go back under your bridge.

 

[Ballstein]

####### ridiculous that a punter gets in while guys like Mecklenburg, Gradishar, Atwater, and TD still aren't in. ####### east bias bull ####.

Ray guy was A freak

 

[Todem]

Marvin Harrison belongs but he's really overrated by a lot of people. Top 5 all time? I don't think so. Guy played pretty much his entire career in a dome in a pass-happy offense with Peyton throwing him the ball. He's not even as good as TO or Randy Moss, much less Rice and Hutson and Carter (IMO).

Your opinion…..and one that is in a minor….minor minority.

Harrison ran probably the crispest routes in history……he and Torry Holt were route masters in my book. Marvin had sick hands….the guy was smooth….butter.

He would have been great outdoors too. So what that he played almost his entire career in a dome? Not his fault. So what he played with Peyton Manning…..so what? He performed at the highest level……just insane how good he was.

Really?

 

[Fariq]

Marvin Harrison belongs but he's really overrated by a lot of people. Top 5 all time? I don't think so. Guy played pretty much his entire career in a dome in a pass-happy offense with Peyton throwing him the ball. He's not even as good as TO or Randy Moss, much less Rice and Hutson and Carter (IMO).

Your opinion..and one that is in a minor.minor minority.Harrison ran probably the crispest routes in historyhe and Torry Holt were route masters in my book. Marvin had sick hands.the guy was smooth.butter.

He would have been great outdoors too. So what that he played almost his entire career in a dome? Not his fault. So what he played with Peyton Manning..so what? He performed at the highest leveljust insane how good he was.

Really?

Yes, Harrison would have been great if he played his home games outside. Two of the great catches of the past quarter century were Harrison catches outdoors in Tennessee and New England.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Tasker should be in before any punter, FWIW.

Disagreed. In terms of impact on the game by special teamers, I think it goes as follows:

1. Returners

2. Placekickers

3. Punters

4. Gunners

If you want to elect a special teamer, start with Upchurch, not Tasker.

Agree with the first two, disagree with 3 and 4. I just think someone playing, and making plays, on punts, kickoffs, field goals (both for and against) likely makes more impact plays than a pure punter. Interested in JWB's thoughts.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

####### ridiculous that a punter gets in while guys like Mecklenburg, Gradishar, Atwater, and TD still aren't in. ####### east bias bull ####.

Boy, you're going to be even more pissed after your team #### the bed tonight, huh?

 

[Adam Harstad]

Tasker should be in before any punter, FWIW.

Disagreed. In terms of impact on the game by special teamers, I think it goes as follows:

1. Returners

2. Placekickers

3. Punters

4. Gunners

If you want to elect a special teamer, start with Upchurch, not Tasker.

Agree with the first two, disagree with 3 and 4. I just think someone playing, and making plays, on punts, kickoffs, field goals (both for and against) likely makes more impact plays than a pure punter. Interested in JWB's thoughts.

Problem is that gunners are only involved on some punts, while punters are involved on all punts. The top special teams guys in the nation this year had about 20 tackles. Leading punters have 90+ punts. On a per-play basis the gunner might provide more value in terms of field position over replacement, but on aggregate punters are clearly more valuable, because they're in on more plays. And of course the NFL agrees with me, which is why elite punters make millions a year and elite gunners are minimum-salary guys.

Edit: whether Punters are 4th or Gunners are 4th, the big takeaway here is that if the NFL wants to elect a special teamer, it needs to nominate Rick Upchurch, not Ray Guy.

 

[Raider Nation]

the big takeaway here is that if the NFL wants to elect a special teamer, it needs to nominate Rick Upchurch, not Ray Guy.

What do you think about Billy "White Shoes" Johnson? Now that Guy has made it, Billy is the sole member of the NFL's 75th Anniversary team who is not in the Hall of Fame. I also thought of Terry Metcalf when you mentioned Rick Upchurch, but browsing his numbers, it seems he was far greater in my mind as a little kid than his production indicates. He sure was exciting and slippery though.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Tasker should be in before any punter, FWIW.

Disagreed. In terms of impact on the game by special teamers, I think it goes as follows:

1. Returners

2. Placekickers

3. Punters

4. Gunners

If you want to elect a special teamer, start with Upchurch, not Tasker.

Agree with the first two, disagree with 3 and 4. I just think someone playing, and making plays, on punts, kickoffs, field goals (both for and against) likely makes more impact plays than a pure punter. Interested in JWB's thoughts.

Problem is that gunners are only involved on some punts, while punters are involved on all punts. The top special teams guys in the nation this year had about 20 tackles. Leading punters have 90+ punts. On a per-play basis the gunner might provide more value in terms of field position over replacement, but on aggregate punters are clearly more valuable, because they're in on more plays. And of course the NFL agrees with me, which is why elite punters make millions a year and elite gunners are minimum-salary guys.

Edit: whether Punters are 4th or Gunners are 4th, the big takeaway here is that if the NFL wants to elect a special teamer, it needs to nominate Rick Upchurch, not Ray Guy.

Yeah, the salary thing is interesting and certainly true, although I do think punting is clearly a more "rare" skill than running down like a madman on punts, kickoffs, blocking on Field Goals, ect. Still, not really sure it's a more of an "impact" on the game than the guy doing all the other stuff well. But, as they say, money talks.

Would be interesting to poll GMs and ask if they would rather have a Ray Guy or a Steve Tasker. I imagine based on salary that Guy would win but I think it would closer than you may think.

Anyway, good talking to you and happy to see Andre in Canton.

 

[Adam Harstad]

the big takeaway here is that if the NFL wants to elect a special teamer, it needs to nominate Rick Upchurch, not Ray Guy.

What do you think about Billy "White Shoes" Johnson? Now that Guy has made it, Billy is the sole member of the NFL's 75th Anniversary team who is not in the Hall of Fame. I also thought of Terry Metcalf when you mentioned Rick Upchurch, but browsing his numbers, it seems he was far greater in my mind as a little kid than his production indicates. He sure was exciting and slippery though.

White Shoes is another excellent choice. I think Upchurch, Johnson, and Mel Gray are the three greatest career returners of all time (setting aside Devin Hester for now- we'll re-evaluate when he retires, but he could easily join that group). I think if the Hall was dead-set on electing a special teamer, any of the three would be a worthy standard-bearer.

When splitting hairs between them, Gray and Upchurch both get an advantage for their hardware- both made the pro bowl 4 times and were 1st-team AP All Pros 3 times, while Johnson only made 3 and 1, respectively. Gray was the most involved on kickoff returns, but he was BY FAR the least involved on offense (263 yards for his entire career). Upchurch and Johnson finished with eerily similar offensive numbers (~4500 yards and 27 TDs), but Upchurch did it over a shorter span and had the best offensive season of the trio in 1979 (950 yards and 7 scores, which actually made him the #14 fantasy receiver that year).

So, Upchurch was the best on offense and the best pure punt returner, but didn't return kickoffs after his first few seasons. White Shoes handled kickoffs off and on, and was also quite involved on offense, but had the fewest awards and wasn't quite as good on punts. Gray was the worst of the trio on punts and did absolutely nothing on offense, but was the best and most prolific kickoff returner of the group, and matched Upchurch in awards.

Really, if the Hall of Famer was dead set on electing a special teamer, I think any one of those trio would be a fitting standard-bearer. I think Upchurch has the best resume of the group, but all three are close and are also head and shoulders above all the other returners, at least until Hester finishes writing his resume.

Edit: I dug up this old post from the PFR blog which has Gray, Upchurch, and Johnson as 3 of the top 4 returners of all time, with the fourth being Brian Mitchell. Mitchell had a really, really long career (especially for a returner), but didn't seem as dominant as the other 3, with a lot less bold text on his PFR page and only 1 pro bowl / 1 first team AP All Pro to his name. With Upchurch rating as the better returner, having more awards, *AND* being more valuable on offense than White Shoes, that seems like a clear edge. From there, it's a question of whether you'd prefer the extra value Gray added as a returner, or you felt that Upchurch's offensive contributions outweighed it.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Tasker should be in before any punter, FWIW.

Disagreed. In terms of impact on the game by special teamers, I think it goes as follows:

1. Returners

2. Placekickers

3. Punters

4. Gunners

If you want to elect a special teamer, start with Upchurch, not Tasker.

Agree with the first two, disagree with 3 and 4. I just think someone playing, and making plays, on punts, kickoffs, field goals (both for and against) likely makes more impact plays than a pure punter. Interested in JWB's thoughts.

Problem is that gunners are only involved on some punts, while punters are involved on all punts. The top special teams guys in the nation this year had about 20 tackles. Leading punters have 90+ punts. On a per-play basis the gunner might provide more value in terms of field position over replacement, but on aggregate punters are clearly more valuable, because they're in on more plays. And of course the NFL agrees with me, which is why elite punters make millions a year and elite gunners are minimum-salary guys.

Edit: whether Punters are 4th or Gunners are 4th, the big takeaway here is that if the NFL wants to elect a special teamer, it needs to nominate Rick Upchurch, not Ray Guy.

Yeah, the salary thing is interesting and certainly true, although I do think punting is clearly a more "rare" skill than running down like a madman on punts, kickoffs, blocking on Field Goals, ect. Still, not really sure it's a more of an "impact" on the game than the guy doing all the other stuff well. But, as they say, money talks.

Would be interesting to poll GMs and ask if they would rather have a Ray Guy or a Steve Tasker. I imagine based on salary that Guy would win but I think it would closer than you may think.

Anyway, good talking to you and happy to see Andre in Canton.

Yup, always fun chatting.

Anyway, I really don't think it'd be that close for GMs- if you told them that money / cap space were no object and they could have either Shane Lechler or Justin Bethel, I'd imagine the support for Lechler would be pretty close to unanimous.

 

[Tau837]

the big takeaway here is that if the NFL wants to elect a special teamer, it needs to nominate Rick Upchurch, not Ray Guy.

What do you think about Billy "White Shoes" Johnson? Now that Guy has made it, Billy is the sole member of the NFL's 75th Anniversary team who is not in the Hall of Fame. I also thought of Terry Metcalf when you mentioned Rick Upchurch, but browsing his numbers, it seems he was far greater in my mind as a little kid than his production indicates. He sure was exciting and slippery though.

White Shoes is another excellent choice. I think Upchurch, Johnson, and Mel Gray are the three greatest career returners of all time (setting aside Devin Hester for now- we'll re-evaluate when he retires, but he could easily join that group). I think if the Hall was dead-set on electing a special teamer, any of the three would be a worthy standard-bearer.

When splitting hairs between them, Gray and Upchurch both get an advantage for their hardware- both made the pro bowl 4 times and were 1st-team AP All Pros 3 times, while Johnson only made 3 and 1, respectively. Gray was the most involved on kickoff returns, but he was BY FAR the least involved on offense (263 yards for his entire career). Upchurch and Johnson finished with eerily similar offensive numbers (~4500 yards and 27 TDs), but Upchurch did it over a shorter span and had the best offensive season of the trio in 1979 (950 yards and 7 scores, which actually made him the #14 fantasy receiver that year).

So, Upchurch was the best on offense and the best pure punt returner, but didn't return kickoffs after his first few seasons. White Shoes handled kickoffs off and on, and was also quite involved on offense, but had the fewest awards and wasn't quite as good on punts. Gray was the worst of the trio on punts and did absolutely nothing on offense, but was the best and most prolific kickoff returner of the group, and matched Upchurch in awards.

Really, if the Hall of Famer was dead set on electing a special teamer, I think any one of those trio would be a fitting standard-bearer. I think Upchurch has the best resume of the group, but all three are close and are also head and shoulders above all the other returners, at least until Hester finishes writing his resume.

Edit: I dug up this old post from the PFR blog which has Gray, Upchurch, and Johnson as 3 of the top 4 returners of all time, with the fourth being Brian Mitchell. Mitchell had a really, really long career (especially for a returner), but didn't seem as dominant as the other 3, with a lot less bold text on his PFR page and only 1 pro bowl / 1 first team AP All Pro to his name. With Upchurch rating as the better returner, having more awards, *AND* being more valuable on offense than White Shoes, that seems like a clear edge. From there, it's a question of whether you'd prefer the extra value Gray added as a returner, or you felt that Upchurch's offensive contributions outweighed it.

It seems silly for any discussion of greatest kick/punt returner to ignore Gale Sayers. He was a better kick and punt returner than Hester and everyone named in your post. And obviously he made a stronger contribution on offense as well.

 

[Tau837]

Tasker should be in before any punter, FWIW.

Disagreed. In terms of impact on the game by special teamers, I think it goes as follows:

1. Returners

2. Placekickers

3. Punters

4. Gunners

If you want to elect a special teamer, start with Upchurch, not Tasker.

Agree with the first two, disagree with 3 and 4. I just think someone playing, and making plays, on punts, kickoffs, field goals (both for and against) likely makes more impact plays than a pure punter. Interested in JWB's thoughts.

I think gunners rank last in terms of impact, based on the same rationale cited by Adam. I'm not so sure how I'd rank the other three, and I think it can potentially vary, depending on if we are talking about average players or elite players.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

It seems silly for any discussion of greatest kick/punt returner to ignore Gale Sayers. He was a better kick and punt returner than Hester and everyone named in your post. And obviously he made a stronger contribution on offense as well.

It's seems silly to bring up a guy that's already in the HOF. Can he be elected twice? What is your point?

 

[Tau837]

It seems silly for any discussion of greatest kick/punt returner to ignore Gale Sayers. He was a better kick and punt returner than Hester and everyone named in your post. And obviously he made a stronger contribution on offense as well.

It's seems silly to bring up a guy that's already in the HOF. Can he be elected twice? What is your point?

The post I responded to made reference to 4 players being the top 4 returners of all time, and didn't include Sayers. Which is silly, as I said.

 

[Raider Nation]

"Hall of Fame Friday Night" is on NFLN right now.

A very sick Jim Kelly showed up to welcome Andre Reed into the club.

 

[Fariq]

"Hall of Fame Friday Night" is on NFLN right now.

A very sick Jim Kelly showed up to welcome Andre Reed into the club.

I went to the Gold Jacket Dinner one time. It is a good night.

 

[Hooper31]

Love this weekend. Love the speeches. Loved watching Walter dominate. Love that Guy is in. Love this game.

 

[Raider Nation]

to the last two posts.

Great ceremony, great time of year!

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

So next year is Junior Seau a lock as a first ballot HOF?

 

[Adam Harstad]

the big takeaway here is that if the NFL wants to elect a special teamer, it needs to nominate Rick Upchurch, not Ray Guy.

What do you think about Billy "White Shoes" Johnson? Now that Guy has made it, Billy is the sole member of the NFL's 75th Anniversary team who is not in the Hall of Fame. I also thought of Terry Metcalf when you mentioned Rick Upchurch, but browsing his numbers, it seems he was far greater in my mind as a little kid than his production indicates. He sure was exciting and slippery though.

White Shoes is another excellent choice. I think Upchurch, Johnson, and Mel Gray are the three greatest career returners of all time (setting aside Devin Hester for now- we'll re-evaluate when he retires, but he could easily join that group). I think if the Hall was dead-set on electing a special teamer, any of the three would be a worthy standard-bearer.

When splitting hairs between them, Gray and Upchurch both get an advantage for their hardware- both made the pro bowl 4 times and were 1st-team AP All Pros 3 times, while Johnson only made 3 and 1, respectively. Gray was the most involved on kickoff returns, but he was BY FAR the least involved on offense (263 yards for his entire career). Upchurch and Johnson finished with eerily similar offensive numbers (~4500 yards and 27 TDs), but Upchurch did it over a shorter span and had the best offensive season of the trio in 1979 (950 yards and 7 scores, which actually made him the #14 fantasy receiver that year).

So, Upchurch was the best on offense and the best pure punt returner, but didn't return kickoffs after his first few seasons. White Shoes handled kickoffs off and on, and was also quite involved on offense, but had the fewest awards and wasn't quite as good on punts. Gray was the worst of the trio on punts and did absolutely nothing on offense, but was the best and most prolific kickoff returner of the group, and matched Upchurch in awards.

Really, if the Hall of Famer was dead set on electing a special teamer, I think any one of those trio would be a fitting standard-bearer. I think Upchurch has the best resume of the group, but all three are close and are also head and shoulders above all the other returners, at least until Hester finishes writing his resume.

Edit: I dug up this old post from the PFR blog which has Gray, Upchurch, and Johnson as 3 of the top 4 returners of all time, with the fourth being Brian Mitchell. Mitchell had a really, really long career (especially for a returner), but didn't seem as dominant as the other 3, with a lot less bold text on his PFR page and only 1 pro bowl / 1 first team AP All Pro to his name. With Upchurch rating as the better returner, having more awards, *AND* being more valuable on offense than White Shoes, that seems like a clear edge. From there, it's a question of whether you'd prefer the extra value Gray added as a returner, or you felt that Upchurch's offensive contributions outweighed it.

It seems silly for any discussion of greatest kick/punt returner to ignore Gale Sayers. He was a better kick and punt returner than Hester and everyone named in your post. And obviously he made a stronger contribution on offense as well.

Hey JWB, I missed this in February, so sorry for the belated response!

Arguing that Gale Sayers is the best returner in history is akin to arguing that Bo Jackson is the best RB in history (or, I suppose, like arguing that Sayers was the best running back in history). Maybe you could make the case that on a per-touch basis he was, but Sayers had 118 combined returns for his career. And he played in a very return-friendly era. Jim Duncan and Cordarrelle Patterson both have a higher career average relative to the league on about half as many returns. Lynn Chandnois has a pretty comparable average on the same number of returns. Abe Woodson was a contemporary of Sayers and put up very similar numbers in his prime. Jack Christiansen was every bit as good on punt returns as Sayers was on kickoffs. In terms of Career value, Chase ranked Sayers 10th on kickoff returns. He ranked 114th on punt returns, largely because he barely had any. If you add his punt and kickoff value, Sayers scored 931. White Shoes scored 1055. Upchurch scored 1061. Gray scored a 1707 (!!!).

This is a devastatingly thorough comparison of all of the greatest returners in history, and probably the best piece of writing I have ever read on the subject. It has Sayers at #4, which seems fair. He was electric and amazing, but in my mind, he's clearly behind Gray, Upchurch, and Johnson.

Of course, Sayers was also dominant on offense and a worthy Hall of Famer for his contributions there alone. I'm not trying to kick Sayers out of the Hall. I'm just saying, if you want to elect the most valuable special teamer in history, start with one of those three.

 

[zed2283]

Jim Kelly looked awful :(

Glad to see Reed make it. He was long overdue and deserved it ahead of Irvin.

They had a great special about Ray Guy on last night. Replay Saturday night at midnight.

 

[Raider Nation]

They had a great special about Ray Guy on last night. Replay Saturday night at midnight.

That was pretty cool. Mississippi is like a different country. I'm not sure I could get used to the pace of life being that slow.