Lynn Swann on ESPN Radio... (1 Viewer)

[cobalt_27]

Probably discussed and debated a few years ago, but I still don't accept this.

He played only 115 games (9 seasons)

Zero 1000 yd seasons. Take that a step further, he never even had 900 yards receiving.

Max receptions in a year: 61

Compared to his peers, he never was the exclusive leader in any category in any year. He tied for 1st in TDs in '75.

No place among the top-50 in any single receiving category.

Absolutely the most undeserving HOFer ever. Am I wrong?

 

[Boston]

As an aside to this debate...he played in an era where the passing game was totally different than today. You absolutely can not look at his stats and compare them to today's WRs.

 

[cobalt_27]

As an aside to this debate...he played in an era where the passing game was totally different than today. You absolutely can not look at his stats and compare them to today's WRs.

That's not an aside at all. I totally agree with you--one can't really compare him to, say, today's type receiver. But, point then requires us to look at his peers at the time, and that hits squarely in the middle of my premise. Even compared to his peers at the time, he was nothing extraordinary. He ranked in the top-10 in the major receiving categories only 2-3 years out of his brief career. He was a fine receiver. But, where did he get off stealing a reservation at Canton?

 

[JaxBill]

Have you been watching "America's Game" on NFLN? In the big games, he not only produced but also performed some very acrobatic catches. He might not have the gross numbers, but he came through at key times when all of the world was watching.

 

[dagogrease]

Have you been watching "America's Game" on NFLN? In the big games, he not only produced but also performed some very acrobatic catches. He might not have the gross numbers, but he came through at key times when all of the world was watching.

He made his name and his "Canton Resume" in the big games on the biggest stage. He was one of the greatest/clutch receives of all-time in the biggest games.

 

[Yitbos69]

I think he has 4 rings and played well in the Big Game(s)....stats never tell the whole story......Art Monk should be in the HOF but he is not.....maybe this year

Swann and Monk were icons in the era's they played.

 

[cobalt_27]

Have you been watching "America's Game" on NFLN? In the big games, he not only produced but also performed some very acrobatic catches. He might not have the gross numbers, but he came through at key times when all of the world was watching.

Fine. Then he belongs in the Circus Hall of Fame.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Probably discussed and debated a few years ago, but I still don't accept this.

He played only 115 games (9 seasons)

Zero 1000 yd seasons. Take that a step further, he never even had 900 yards receiving.

Max receptions in a year: 61

Compared to his peers, he never was the exclusive leader in any category in any year. He tied for 1st in TDs in '75.

The in the top-50 in any single receiving category.

Absolutely the most undeserving HOFer ever. Am I wrong?

IMO, yes.Joe Willie Namath

Those numbers are an embarrassment to Canton

 

[cobalt_27]

Probably discussed and debated a few years ago, but I still don't accept this.

He played only 115 games (9 seasons)

Zero 1000 yd seasons. Take that a step further, he never even had 900 yards receiving.

Max receptions in a year: 61

Compared to his peers, he never was the exclusive leader in any category in any year. He tied for 1st in TDs in '75.

The in the top-50 in any single receiving category.

Absolutely the most undeserving HOFer ever. Am I wrong?

IMO, yes.Joe Willie Namath

Those numbers are an embarrassment to Canton

I agree.1. Joe Namath

2. Lynn Swann

In that order.

If we take the "Fame" part literally, then both of these guys obviously belong in the HOF. Seems the folks who vote have a bit of a higher standard, though. A standard that neither Swann or Namath satisfy.

 

[Godsbrother]

There is simply no way to convince people how good he was if you never watched him play. I watched nearly every game Lynn Swann played in his career.

He was an excellent athlete and had outstanding hands making amazing acrobatic catches. He was also a great blocker, which was required for a receiver on the Steelers.

From 1975 to 1981 he was considered one of the top receivers in the league by nearly everyone. He also played HUGE in the playoffs and Super Bowls.

I think he belongs in the HoF but I can see why others, especially those that weren't watching the NFL in the 70s, would think he doesn't belong.

 

[cobalt_27]

There is simply no way to convince people how good he was if you never watched him play. I watched nearly every game Lynn Swann played in his career. He was an excellent athlete and had outstanding hands making amazing acrobatic catches. He was also a great blocker, which was required for a receiver on the Steelers.From 1975 to 1981 he was considered one of the top receivers in the league by nearly everyone. He also played HUGE in the playoffs and Super Bowls.I think he belongs in the HoF but I can see why others, especially those that weren't watching the NFL in the 70s, would think he doesn't belong.

I was watching football in the 70s. He was clearly one of the better receivers of the time. His time was too short, and he wasn't THAT much better than his peers even when he did play. Stallworth, fwiw, was better.

 

[On The Rocks]

and he gets reallllllly p.o.'d when people question him about being in the HOF. i have seen him interviewed and asked about it, he throws a downright hissy fit.

i saw him at the HOF ceremonies a few years ago, as he was passing through a roped off area.

i asked him where he purchased the yellow blazer. he looked like he wanted to rip my head off.

 

[On The Rocks]

There is simply no way to convince people how good he was if you never watched him play. I watched nearly every game Lynn Swann played in his career. He was an excellent athlete and had outstanding hands making amazing acrobatic catches. He was also a great blocker, which was required for a receiver on the Steelers.From 1975 to 1981 he was considered one of the top receivers in the league by nearly everyone. He also played HUGE in the playoffs and Super Bowls.I think he belongs in the HoF but I can see why others, especially those that weren't watching the NFL in the 70s, would think he doesn't belong.

I was watching football in the 70s. He was clearly one of the better receivers of the time. His time was too short, and he wasn't THAT much better than his peers even when he did play. Stallworth, fwiw, was better.

Swann is a good example of a player that made the HOF strictly (IMHO) by the Super Bowl highlight reels.

 

[dagogrease]

There is simply no way to convince people how good he was if you never watched him play. I watched nearly every game Lynn Swann played in his career. He was an excellent athlete and had outstanding hands making amazing acrobatic catches. He was also a great blocker, which was required for a receiver on the Steelers.From 1975 to 1981 he was considered one of the top receivers in the league by nearly everyone. He also played HUGE in the playoffs and Super Bowls.I think he belongs in the HoF but I can see why others, especially those that weren't watching the NFL in the 70s, would think he doesn't belong.

I was watching football in the 70s. He was clearly one of the better receivers of the time. His time was too short, and he wasn't THAT much better than his peers even when he did play. Stallworth, fwiw, was better.

Regular season statistics should not be the only criteria to get into the Hall of Fame. Joe Namath was the most influential player in regards to the AFL and how that league was perceived by the NFL. That is the reason why he is in the HOF not his total body of work stats. Swann was the top WR on at least 3 of the 4 Pittsburgh Super Bowl teams and without him they probably would not have won Super Bowl IX. If you did watch football in the 70's, what other WRs would you put ahead of Swann during that era?

 

[Boston]

There is simply no way to convince people how good he was if you never watched him play. I watched nearly every game Lynn Swann played in his career. He was an excellent athlete and had outstanding hands making amazing acrobatic catches. He was also a great blocker, which was required for a receiver on the Steelers.From 1975 to 1981 he was considered one of the top receivers in the league by nearly everyone. He also played HUGE in the playoffs and Super Bowls.I think he belongs in the HoF but I can see why others, especially those that weren't watching the NFL in the 70s, would think he doesn't belong.

Agree 100%.As for Joe Namath...the fact he's one of the top figures in NFL history trumps some stats that may not seem Hall worthy. In many ways he was the first "TV" star of the NFL and a lot of the NFL's popularity stems directly from him (as well as the Colts/Giants championship game). Also, he had a big hand in the eventual merger that took place between the AFL and the NFL. Pre-Joe Willie many never thought an AFL team could handle an NFL juggernaut like the Colts.Sports is not all about stats...and Namath is a very big example of that. The guy was larger tha life during his prime and his entrance into the Hall is about a lot more than stats.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

i saw him at the HOF ceremonies a few years ago, as he was passing through a roped off area.i asked him where he purchased the yellow blazer. he looked like he wanted to rip my head off.

 

[dagogrease]

and he gets reallllllly p.o.'d when people question him about being in the HOF. i have seen him interviewed and asked about it, he throws a downright hissy fit.i saw him at the HOF ceremonies a few years ago, as he was passing through a roped off area.i asked him where he purchased the yellow blazer. he looked like he wanted to rip my head off.

Do you blame him after that comment....rather disrespectful?

 

[On The Rocks]

and he gets reallllllly p.o.'d when people question him about being in the HOF. i have seen him interviewed and asked about it, he throws a downright hissy fit.i saw him at the HOF ceremonies a few years ago, as he was passing through a roped off area.i asked him where he purchased the yellow blazer. he looked like he wanted to rip my head off.

Do you blame him after that comment....rather disrespectful?

i don't blame him at all. back then I probably had a few cold drinks in me and didn't care.i have come to like Lynn Swann.if i had a vote for who gets in and who doesn't, those that would want him in would have to some convincing to get me to vote yeah.i am not saying i couldn't be convinced, but based on what i perceive a hall of famer to be, he doesn't make my list.

 

[phthalatemagic]

Weren't Pro-Bowls less political than now? He only made three right? Why did he only make three? Did Swann even make an All-Pro team? I was too young to see him live, so he looks like a hero because the only games I've seen of him were Super Bowl replays.

 

[cobalt_27]

There is simply no way to convince people how good he was if you never watched him play. I watched nearly every game Lynn Swann played in his career. He was an excellent athlete and had outstanding hands making amazing acrobatic catches. He was also a great blocker, which was required for a receiver on the Steelers.From 1975 to 1981 he was considered one of the top receivers in the league by nearly everyone. He also played HUGE in the playoffs and Super Bowls.I think he belongs in the HoF but I can see why others, especially those that weren't watching the NFL in the 70s, would think he doesn't belong.

I was watching football in the 70s. He was clearly one of the better receivers of the time. His time was too short, and he wasn't THAT much better than his peers even when he did play. Stallworth, fwiw, was better.

Regular season statistics should not be the only criteria to get into the Hall of Fame. Joe Namath was the most influential player in regards to the AFL and how that league was perceived by the NFL. That is the reason why he is in the HOF not his total body of work stats. Swann was the top WR on at least 3 of the 4 Pittsburgh Super Bowl teams and without him they probably would not have won Super Bowl IX. If you did watch football in the 70's, what other WRs would you put ahead of Swann during that era?

Off the top of my head...BranchTaylorStallworthLargentJoinerAnd, I always thought Pearson was the better receiver, too.

 

[Sabertooth]

Good player on great teams. How many Rings does he have?

 

[dagogrease]

There is simply no way to convince people how good he was if you never watched him play. I watched nearly every game Lynn Swann played in his career. He was an excellent athlete and had outstanding hands making amazing acrobatic catches. He was also a great blocker, which was required for a receiver on the Steelers.From 1975 to 1981 he was considered one of the top receivers in the league by nearly everyone. He also played HUGE in the playoffs and Super Bowls.I think he belongs in the HoF but I can see why others, especially those that weren't watching the NFL in the 70s, would think he doesn't belong.

I was watching football in the 70s. He was clearly one of the better receivers of the time. His time was too short, and he wasn't THAT much better than his peers even when he did play. Stallworth, fwiw, was better.

Regular season statistics should not be the only criteria to get into the Hall of Fame. Joe Namath was the most influential player in regards to the AFL and how that league was perceived by the NFL. That is the reason why he is in the HOF not his total body of work stats. Swann was the top WR on at least 3 of the 4 Pittsburgh Super Bowl teams and without him they probably would not have won Super Bowl IX. If you did watch football in the 70's, what other WRs would you put ahead of Swann during that era?

Off the top of my head...BranchTaylorStallworthLargentJoinerAnd, I always thought Pearson was the better receiver, too.

I agree that it is absolutely wrong that Drew Pearson is not in the Hall of Fame...but 3 out of 5 of the guys you mention are in the HOF. IMO, Swann was as good if not better than all of them. His career was cut short due to concussion problems or his numbers would have exceeded those that you mention.

 

[redman]

There is simply no way to convince people how good he was if you never watched him play. I watched nearly every game Lynn Swann played in his career. He was an excellent athlete and had outstanding hands making amazing acrobatic catches. He was also a great blocker, which was required for a receiver on the Steelers.From 1975 to 1981 he was considered one of the top receivers in the league by nearly everyone. He also played HUGE in the playoffs and Super Bowls.I think he belongs in the HoF but I can see why others, especially those that weren't watching the NFL in the 70s, would think he doesn't belong.

Then how 'bout Terrell Davis? You can make all of those same arguments for him: top of the game for a stretch of years; played big in big games; did the little things for his team that helped them win. The truth is that Swann was a good WR who was not the first option on his team, and whose Hall of Fame induction was based upon three very acrobatic and iconic Super Bowl catches. If he doesn't make those catches, he's not in the Hall of Fame. That, to me, is just not a good enough basis for induction.

 

[Please See Mine]

There are 17 receivers in the Hall from the so-called Modern Era

Player	Year		  Rec	Yards	TD's	Y/R	Pro BowlLance Alworth	   1962-1972	542	10266	85	18.9	7Raymond Berry	1955-1967	631	9275	68	14.7	5Fred Biletnikoff	 1965-1978	589	8974	76	15.2	6Tom Fears			1948-1956	400	5397	38	13.5	1Elroy Hirsch		  1946-1956	343	6299	53	18.4	3Charlie Joiner	   1969-1986	750	12146	65	16.2	3Steve Largent	   1976-1989	819	13089	100	16	7Dante Lavelli		 1946-1956 	244	3908	33	16	3James Lofton		1978-1993	764	14004	75	18.3	8Don Maynard		1958,1960-73	633	11834	88	18.7	4Tommy McDonald  1957-1968	495	8410	84	17	6Bobby Mitchell	   1958-1968	521	7954	65	15.3	4Pete Pihos			 1947-1955	373	5619	61	15.1	6John Stallworth	  1974-1987	537	8723	63	16.1	3Lynn Swann		   1974-1982	336	5462	51	16.3	3Charley Taylor	  1964-75, 77	649	9110	79	14	8Paul Warfield		1964-1977 	427	8565	85	20.1	8

I never actually saw him play and I don't think the stats are the only thing to be considered, but it's interesting that the only guys whose stats are comparable all played 30 years before him, when it wasn't nearly as passing friendly.

 

[Please See Mine]

that code function really worked out well.

 

[cobalt_27]

There is simply no way to convince people how good he was if you never watched him play. I watched nearly every game Lynn Swann played in his career. He was an excellent athlete and had outstanding hands making amazing acrobatic catches. He was also a great blocker, which was required for a receiver on the Steelers.From 1975 to 1981 he was considered one of the top receivers in the league by nearly everyone. He also played HUGE in the playoffs and Super Bowls.I think he belongs in the HoF but I can see why others, especially those that weren't watching the NFL in the 70s, would think he doesn't belong.

I was watching football in the 70s. He was clearly one of the better receivers of the time. His time was too short, and he wasn't THAT much better than his peers even when he did play. Stallworth, fwiw, was better.

Regular season statistics should not be the only criteria to get into the Hall of Fame. Joe Namath was the most influential player in regards to the AFL and how that league was perceived by the NFL. That is the reason why he is in the HOF not his total body of work stats. Swann was the top WR on at least 3 of the 4 Pittsburgh Super Bowl teams and without him they probably would not have won Super Bowl IX. If you did watch football in the 70's, what other WRs would you put ahead of Swann during that era?

Off the top of my head...BranchTaylorStallworthLargentJoinerAnd, I always thought Pearson was the better receiver, too.

I agree that it is absolutely wrong that Drew Pearson is not in the Hall of Fame...but 3 out of 5 of the guys you mention are in the HOF. IMO, Swann was as good if not better than all of them. His career was cut short due to concussion problems or his numbers would have exceeded those that you mention.

His career was cut short because he signed a contract with ABC to get his mug in front of the cameras. He was always an attention whore from Day 1. Nothing wrong with that. But, let's call a spade a spade.

 

[Urinal Mint]

He made a couple of circus catches in a couple of big games.

I secretly think that the HOF committee wanted to watch a guy stumble through an acceptance speech with a horrible lisp.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Because until the 80's rolled around... he was THE wideout you wanted.

Branch

Taylor

Stallworth

Largent

Joiner

Are all worthy. You missed some also. Some great ones. Some that are just as good as Swann.

But the first statement/sentence remains true.

 

[cobalt_27]

Because until the 80's rolled around... he was THE wideout you wanted.BranchTaylorStallworthLargentJoinerAre all worthy. You missed some also. Some great ones. Some that are just as good as Swann.But the first statement/sentence remains true.

How I left off Warfield and Biletnikoff, I don't know. Even on an "off the top of my head" list has to include those guys.And, I would've wanted all 7 of those guys before Swann, who'd be 8 or 9 on that list, depending on my mood about Drew Pearson that day. But, certainly not THE wideout I'd want from that era.

 

[dagogrease]

There is simply no way to convince people how good he was if you never watched him play. I watched nearly every game Lynn Swann played in his career. He was an excellent athlete and had outstanding hands making amazing acrobatic catches. He was also a great blocker, which was required for a receiver on the Steelers.From 1975 to 1981 he was considered one of the top receivers in the league by nearly everyone. He also played HUGE in the playoffs and Super Bowls.I think he belongs in the HoF but I can see why others, especially those that weren't watching the NFL in the 70s, would think he doesn't belong.

Then how 'bout Terrell Davis? You can make all of those same arguments for him: top of the game for a stretch of years; played big in big games; did the little things for his team that helped them win. The truth is that Swann was a good WR who was not the first option on his team, and whose Hall of Fame induction was based upon three very acrobatic and iconic Super Bowl catches. If he doesn't make those catches, he's not in the Hall of Fame. That, to me, is just not a good enough basis for induction.

What about Gale Sayers? Do you think he should not be in the Hall of Fame? Terrell Davis will get serious consideration for the HOF. It took Swann 18 years to be inducted.When you say he was not the first option on his team, he was the first receiving option? True, the running game was the first option. The main reason why Swann is in the Hall of Fame was due to his body of work in the Super Bowls. He was the #1 receiver to 3 of the Steelers 4 Super Bowl champion teams and he performed at the highest level in those games. IMO, that is HOF worthy.

 

[billyjoe]

Probably discussed and debated a few years ago, but I still don't accept this. He played only 115 games (9 seasons)Zero 1000 yd seasons. Take that a step further, he never even had 900 yards receiving.Max receptions in a year: 61Compared to his peers, he never was the exclusive leader in any category in any year. He tied for 1st in TDs in '75. The in the top-50 in any single receiving category.Absolutely the most undeserving HOFer ever. Am I wrong?

It's about moments.For any HOFer, you should be able to remember 1-2-3+ "moments". Big stage, big play, big win. Lets say you play 20 years, average 65 catches, 900 yards, 5 tds. Sure you have 1,300 catches, 18,000 yards and 100 TDs. But were you great? Should you be in the Hall of Fame because of your stats? Hell no.Big games, big plays, big wins, moments. You shouldn't have to bring up stats when talking the HOF. If you have to bring up stats for a guy to support his case, he's not a HOFer. Marino? I don't need stats to know he's one of the best of all time. Elway? Montana? Rice? No one needs to bring up stats with those guys. It should be, Walter Payton, HOF? Without thinking, of course. No need to think about it, bring up stats, he's a HOFer, end of story. If there's debate, he's not a HOFer. And to me, there's no debate about Swann. Or Namath.

 

[dagogrease]

Because until the 80's rolled around... he was THE wideout you wanted.BranchTaylorStallworthLargentJoinerAre all worthy. You missed some also. Some great ones. Some that are just as good as Swann.But the first statement/sentence remains true.

How I left off Warfield and Biletnikoff, I don't know. Even on an "off the top of my head" list has to include those guys.And, I would've wanted all 7 of those guys before Swann, who'd be 8 or 9 on that list, depending on my mood about Drew Pearson that day. But, certainly not THE wideout I'd want from that era.

I guess I just have to agree to disagree...if I could have one WR in the biggest game I would take Swann. He proved it time and time again.

 

[cobalt_27]

When you say he was not the first option on his team, he was the first receiving option? True, the running game was the first option. The main reason why Swann is in the Hall of Fame was due to his body of work in the Super Bowls. He was the #1 receiver to 3 of the Steelers 4 Super Bowl champion teams and he performed at the highest level in those games. IMO, that is HOF worthy.

He was the leading receiver in TWO of the four SBs. Stallworth had 42 more receiving yards than Swann in the 1980 SB against the Rams (3/121/1) and Swan didn't even have a single reception in the '74 SB.

 

[dagogrease]

There is simply no way to convince people how good he was if you never watched him play. I watched nearly every game Lynn Swann played in his career. He was an excellent athlete and had outstanding hands making amazing acrobatic catches. He was also a great blocker, which was required for a receiver on the Steelers.From 1975 to 1981 he was considered one of the top receivers in the league by nearly everyone. He also played HUGE in the playoffs and Super Bowls.I think he belongs in the HoF but I can see why others, especially those that weren't watching the NFL in the 70s, would think he doesn't belong.

I was watching football in the 70s. He was clearly one of the better receivers of the time. His time was too short, and he wasn't THAT much better than his peers even when he did play. Stallworth, fwiw, was better.

Regular season statistics should not be the only criteria to get into the Hall of Fame. Joe Namath was the most influential player in regards to the AFL and how that league was perceived by the NFL. That is the reason why he is in the HOF not his total body of work stats. Swann was the top WR on at least 3 of the 4 Pittsburgh Super Bowl teams and without him they probably would not have won Super Bowl IX. If you did watch football in the 70's, what other WRs would you put ahead of Swann during that era?

Off the top of my head...BranchTaylorStallworthLargentJoinerAnd, I always thought Pearson was the better receiver, too.

I agree that it is absolutely wrong that Drew Pearson is not in the Hall of Fame...but 3 out of 5 of the guys you mention are in the HOF. IMO, Swann was as good if not better than all of them. His career was cut short due to concussion problems or his numbers would have exceeded those that you mention.

His career was cut short because he signed a contract with ABC to get his mug in front of the cameras. He was always an attention whore from Day 1. Nothing wrong with that. But, let's call a spade a spade.

I agree...Swann always has been an attention whore. His campaign for governor was the icing on the cake. However, he suffered numerous concussions in his career and doctors advised him that there could be reprocussions from that if it continued. When the ABC job was offered to him...I can't fault him for taking it.

 

[dagogrease]

When you say he was not the first option on his team, he was the first receiving option? True, the running game was the first option. The main reason why Swann is in the Hall of Fame was due to his body of work in the Super Bowls. He was the #1 receiver to 3 of the Steelers 4 Super Bowl champion teams and he performed at the highest level in those games. IMO, that is HOF worthy.

He was the leading receiver in TWO of the four SBs. Stallworth had 42 more receiving yards than Swann in the 1980 SB against the Rams (3/121/1) and Swan didn't even have a single reception in the '74 SB.

Yes, you are correct...but I did not mean just the Super Bowl. I was looking at the entire season.

 

[cobalt_27]

Because until the 80's rolled around... he was THE wideout you wanted.BranchTaylorStallworthLargentJoinerAre all worthy. You missed some also. Some great ones. Some that are just as good as Swann.But the first statement/sentence remains true.

How I left off Warfield and Biletnikoff, I don't know. Even on an "off the top of my head" list has to include those guys.And, I would've wanted all 7 of those guys before Swann, who'd be 8 or 9 on that list, depending on my mood about Drew Pearson that day. But, certainly not THE wideout I'd want from that era.

I guess I just have to agree to disagree...if I could have one WR in the biggest game I would take Swann. He proved it time and time again.

If I could have one WR in the big game, Swann would have been #2 on his OWN TEAM. Stallworth was clearly more productive throughout his playoff career and had two very productive SB games, himself.

 

[massraider]

There is simply no way to convince people how good he was if you never watched him play. I watched nearly every game Lynn Swann played in his career.

He was an excellent athlete and had outstanding hands making amazing acrobatic catches. He was also a great blocker, which was required for a receiver on the Steelers.

From 1975 to 1981 he was considered one of the top receivers in the league by nearly everyone. He also played HUGE in the playoffs and Super Bowls.

I think he belongs in the HoF but I can see why others, especially those that weren't watching the NFL in the 70s, would think he doesn't belong.

Then how 'bout Terrell Davis? You can make all of those same arguments for him: top of the game for a stretch of years; played big in big games; did the little things for his team that helped them win. The truth is that Swann was a good WR who was not the first option on his team, and whose Hall of Fame induction was based upon three very acrobatic and iconic Super Bowl catches. If he doesn't make those catches, he's not in the Hall of Fame. That, to me, is just not a good enough basis for induction.

What about Gale Sayers?

Took long enough for the Gale Sayers mention. I was looking for it much sooner.

He was the #1 receiver to 3 of the Steelers 4 Super Bowl champion teams and he performed at the highest level in those games. IMO, that is HOF worthy.

An average career and three big games? IMO, that is not HOF-worthy.

 

[dagogrease]

Because until the 80's rolled around... he was THE wideout you wanted.BranchTaylorStallworthLargentJoinerAre all worthy. You missed some also. Some great ones. Some that are just as good as Swann.But the first statement/sentence remains true.

How I left off Warfield and Biletnikoff, I don't know. Even on an "off the top of my head" list has to include those guys.And, I would've wanted all 7 of those guys before Swann, who'd be 8 or 9 on that list, depending on my mood about Drew Pearson that day. But, certainly not THE wideout I'd want from that era.

I guess I just have to agree to disagree...if I could have one WR in the biggest game I would take Swann. He proved it time and time again.

If I could have one WR in the big game, Swann would have been #2 on his OWN TEAM. Stallworth was clearly more productive throughout his playoff career and had two very productive SB games, himself.

Don't get me wrong when I say this as Stallworth deserves to be in the HOF, but the catches that Swann did make...Stallworth would not have made. Stallworth's big catches in Super Bowl XIV were made due to speed, his height and Bradshaw putting the ball on the money. On the other hand, Bradshaw just had to put the ball up in the air and Swann would make the incredible leaping catch...just my 2 cents.

 

[Godsbrother]

The truth is that Swann was a good WR who was not the first option on his team, and whose Hall of Fame induction was based upon three very acrobatic and iconic Super Bowl catches. If he doesn't make those catches, he's not in the Hall of Fame. That, to me, is just not a good enough basis for induction.

Not sure where you got that from. Lynn Swann led Steelers WRs in receptions during their hey-day: 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1980. He retired after the 1982 season.Stallworth and Swann played together from 1974-1982. During that time Swann had 51 TDs, Stallworth 41.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Probably discussed and debated a few years ago, but I still don't accept this. He played only 115 games (9 seasons)Zero 1000 yd seasons. Take that a step further, he never even had 900 yards receiving.Max receptions in a year: 61Compared to his peers, he never was the exclusive leader in any category in any year. He tied for 1st in TDs in '75. The in the top-50 in any single receiving category.Absolutely the most undeserving HOFer ever. Am I wrong?

Because the population overrates individuals who were part of winning teams!

 

[Godsbrother]

Probably discussed and debated a few years ago, but I still don't accept this. He played only 115 games (9 seasons)Zero 1000 yd seasons. Take that a step further, he never even had 900 yards receiving.Max receptions in a year: 61Compared to his peers, he never was the exclusive leader in any category in any year. He tied for 1st in TDs in '75. The in the top-50 in any single receiving category.Absolutely the most undeserving HOFer ever. Am I wrong?

Because the population overrates individuals who were part of winning teams!

The general population does not vote for the HoF. The HoF is voted on by the Board of Selectors which consists of one media representative from each NFL city and six at-large delegates (usually cities that lose NFL teams keep representation on the board), and one representative from the Pro Football Writers of America.** This info is from wikipedia

 

[On The Rocks]

Probably discussed and debated a few years ago, but I still don't accept this. He played only 115 games (9 seasons)Zero 1000 yd seasons. Take that a step further, he never even had 900 yards receiving.Max receptions in a year: 61Compared to his peers, he never was the exclusive leader in any category in any year. He tied for 1st in TDs in '75. The in the top-50 in any single receiving category.Absolutely the most undeserving HOFer ever. Am I wrong?

Because the population overrates individuals who were part of winning teams!

The general population does not vote for the HoF. The HoF is voted on by the Board of Selectors which consists of one media representative from each NFL city and six at-large delegates (usually cities that lose NFL teams keep representation on the board), and one representative from the Pro Football Writers of America.** This info is from wikipedia

Living Hall of Famers have a vote also no?

 

[Ghost Rider]

Have you been watching "America's Game" on NFLN? In the big games, he not only produced but also performed some very acrobatic catches. He might not have the gross numbers, but he came through at key times when all of the world was watching.

He made his name and his "Canton Resume" in the big games on the biggest stage. He was one of the greatest/clutch receives of all-time in the biggest games.

*cough* Terrell Davis *cough*

There is simply no way to convince people how good he was if you never watched him play. I watched nearly every game Lynn Swann played in his career. He was an excellent athlete and had outstanding hands making amazing acrobatic catches. He was also a great blocker, which was required for a receiver on the Steelers.From 1975 to 1981 he was considered one of the top receivers in the league by nearly everyone. He also played HUGE in the playoffs and Super Bowls.I think he belongs in the HoF but I can see why others, especially those that weren't watching the NFL in the 70s, would think he doesn't belong.

Then how 'bout Terrell Davis? You can make all of those same arguments for him: top of the game for a stretch of years; played big in big games; did the little things for his team that helped them win.

It is true that you should not compare one player from one era to a player from a different era. You should compare a player to his peers of his own era. Swann finished in the top 5 in receiving yards once. ONCE. He never finished in the top 5 in receptions in a single season.

 

[Pip's Invitation]

The baseball HOF is almost entirely about stats. The football HOF has never been as much about stats. Championships and intangibles seem to count for a lot more, and always have. A Swann equivalent would never make it into the baseball HOF -- but given the criteria used in the football voting, it does make sense that he's in, even if he's not an obvious choice.

 

[cobalt_27]

Have you been watching "America's Game" on NFLN? In the big games, he not only produced but also performed some very acrobatic catches. He might not have the gross numbers, but he came through at key times when all of the world was watching.

He made his name and his "Canton Resume" in the big games on the biggest stage. He was one of the greatest/clutch receives of all-time in the biggest games.

*cough* Terrell Davis *cough*

There is simply no way to convince people how good he was if you never watched him play. I watched nearly every game Lynn Swann played in his career. He was an excellent athlete and had outstanding hands making amazing acrobatic catches. He was also a great blocker, which was required for a receiver on the Steelers.From 1975 to 1981 he was considered one of the top receivers in the league by nearly everyone. He also played HUGE in the playoffs and Super Bowls.I think he belongs in the HoF but I can see why others, especially those that weren't watching the NFL in the 70s, would think he doesn't belong.

Then how 'bout Terrell Davis? You can make all of those same arguments for him: top of the game for a stretch of years; played big in big games; did the little things for his team that helped them win.

It is true that you should not compare one player from one era to a player from a different era. You should compare a player to his peers of his own era. Swann finished in the top 5 in receiving yards once. ONCE. He never finished in the top 5 in receptions in a single season.

IMO, Davis is a more worthy HOF candidate than the circus clown. But, I don't think even HE should get in.

 

[H.K.]

You should compare a player to his peers of his own era. Swann finished in the top 5 in receiving yards once. ONCE. He never finished in the top 5 in receptions in a single season.

Offensive scheme down? Not getting stats in garbage time down?Swann was an integral part on one of the best teams ever, he was a reason why they were one of the best teams ever, too. He is in the HOF because he helped the Steelers win by making key plays at key moments, not because he posted good stat results in meaningless games.As for Namath, anyone who doesn't recognize how big a part he played in getting the NFL to evolve to where it is today, or know how good he was in his prime, you really need to do your homework.

 

[Aero]

This business about highlight reel moments and performing in big games.....the HOF shouldn't be about that crap. It's about a career of consistantly being among the very best at your position. If you think highlight reel guys deserve to be in the hall, then what about Bo Jackson? A spectacular athlete, but didn't play long enough to be in the HOF. What about Kurt Warner? Was the best QB in the league for three years, led one of the top offensive attacks EVER, and has a ring. Pretty much nothing else. Does that deserve HOF consideration? I say no. But in terms of highlight reel moments, notoriety, big stage performances, he's up there.

Stats are the way to determine if what the popular opinion of a guy is vs what he really accomplished through a CAREER. Everyone remembers Super Bowl moments, but what a player does in the Super Bowl is only one game. Folks who completely diss stats are putting emotion before reason.

 

[cobalt_27]

You should compare a player to his peers of his own era. Swann finished in the top 5 in receiving yards once. ONCE. He never finished in the top 5 in receptions in a single season.

Offensive scheme down? Not getting stats in garbage time down?Swann was an integral part on one of the best teams ever, he was a reason why they were one of the best teams ever, too. He is in the HOF because he helped the Steelers win by making key plays at key moments, not because he posted good stat results in meaningless games.As for Namath, anyone who doesn't recognize how big a part he played in getting the NFL to evolve to where it is today, or know how good he was in his prime, you really need to do your homework.

Namath is a symbolic icon, no doubt. If that's what makes it to the Hall, then so be it.But, please spare me the homework garbage regarding his prime. In his prime, he was an interception machine. In his 13-year career, only TWICE did he pass for more TDs than INTs ('65 and '69). More than half the years in his career (7), he passed for UNDER 50% completions. In his best year, he threw 52.9%. I mean, seriously, who on earth has been that bad for that long?Famous? Yes. Great QB? Absolutely, positively not.

 

[DrJ]

Did anybody see the Fridge's kickass run in Superbowl XX?

 

[Z-Dog]

There is simply no way to convince people how good he was if you never watched him play. I watched nearly every game Lynn Swann played in his career. He was an excellent athlete and had outstanding hands making amazing acrobatic catches. He was also a great blocker, which was required for a receiver on the Steelers.From 1975 to 1981 he was considered one of the top receivers in the league by nearly everyone. He also played HUGE in the playoffs and Super Bowls.I think he belongs in the HoF but I can see why others, especially those that weren't watching the NFL in the 70s, would think he doesn't belong.

Then how 'bout Terrell Davis? You can make all of those same arguments for him: top of the game for a stretch of years; played big in big games; did the little things for his team that helped them win. The truth is that Swann was a good WR who was not the first option on his team, and whose Hall of Fame induction was based upon three very acrobatic and iconic Super Bowl catches. If he doesn't make those catches, he's not in the Hall of Fame. That, to me, is just not a good enough basis for induction.

If TD had won four spuperbowls, he would be in the hall of fame. And given that he rushed for over 2k yards in a season and won two superbowls (and essentially replaces Elway as the most important player on the team) I think you can make a good case for him. The major problem is that other backs have shown that those sorts of numbers are achievable (Jamal Lewis, Preist Holmes, Shaun Alexander LaDanian Tomlinson) while other backs have put together incredibly long and productive careers (Jerome Bettis, Curtis Martin) such that Davis is not quite as impressive.