What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

Should Swann be in the HOF?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
If you want to use the whole fantasy routine, you can tweak this any number of ways. But, if this were a PPR league that rewarded 1pt/10yds (and 6/td), then Swann in his best, supposedly dominant, years ranks 5th:

BranchCl 851.7

Carmicha 847.1

Burrough 838.7

PearsonD 836.8

SwannLyn 828.4

MooreNat 795

JacksonH 793.9

LargentS 785.3

JoinerCh 758.9

RuckerRe 758.3

Of course, he had 4 disasterous years, statistically, to surround his prime years.

 
It is what it is said:
It is what it is said:
:thumbup:

Talk about imaginary numbers...I asked for your list of HOF WR's from these time period's once before in here, and you ignored my request.

How about producing these HOF WR's from these time period's? :coffee:
He posted the link in post #309
Post the names and years for me. I am not researching everybody's argument for them here...
What the hey, I'm feeling generousWR 1978 1 6 6 James Lofton Packers Stanford 2003

1976 4 25 117 Steve Largent Oilers Tulsa 1995

1974 1 21 21 Lynn Swann Steelers USC 2001

1974 4 4 82 John Stallworth Steelers Alabama A&M 2002

1969 4 15 93 Charlie Joiner Oilers Grambling 1996

1965 2 0 0 Fred Biletnikoff Raiders Florida State 1988

1965 3 11 39 Fred Biletnikoff Lions Florida State 1988

1964 1 11 11 Paul Warfield Browns Ohio State 1983

1962 1 8 8 Lance Alworth 49ers Arkansas 1978

1962 2 0 9 Lance Alworth Raiders Arkansas 1978

1957 3 6 31 Tommy McDonald Eagles Oklahoma 1998

1957 9 12 109 Don Maynard Giants Texas-El Paso 1987

1954 20 3 232 Raymond Berry Colts Southern Methodist 1973

1947 10 8 103 Dante Lavelli Rams Ohio State 1975

1945 1 5 5 Elroy Hirsch Rams Michigan/Wisconsin 1968

1945 5 9 41 Pete Pihos Eagles Indiana 1970

1945 11 5 103 Tom Fears Rams UCLA 1970

0 0 0 Don Hutson Alabama 1963

 
It is what it is said:
It is what it is said:
It is what it is said:
:mellow:

Talk about imaginary numbers...I asked for your list of HOF WR's from these time period's once before in here, and you ignored my request.

How about producing these HOF WR's from these time period's? :thumbup:
He posted the link in post #309
Post the names and years for me. I am not researching everybody's argument for them here...
clicking on a link is "research"?
Did you click on the link? That link has them alphabetized (not by year) and not even listed by position...

If the research is so easy, then you produce the WR's and years for me. From what you are implying, it should take you no time... :coffee:
Did you clink on the link? It did list players by position and by year drafted.
 
Also, on your assertion that Boldin has the best start to a career at the position outside of Moss... it took me about 5 minutes to find this:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/HayeBo00.htm

Bob Hayes was #4 in receiving yards, #1 in TD's, and #10 in yards from scrimmage, and 3rd in rush/rec TD's in his rookie season.

He was #2 in receiving yards, #1 in receiving TD's, #7 in yards from scrimmage, and #4 in rec/rush TD in his 2nd season.

Boldin was #3 in receptions, #3 in receiving yards and didn't rank in TD's his first season. He didn't rank top 10 in any category in his 2nd season.

Boldin doesn't even have as many TD's in his career thusfar as Hayes got in those first 2 seasons. Playing 14 games a season mind you.

Clearly Hayes' start to his career is far more impressive, and I'm sure there are other examples.

I seriously can't see how you can be willing to punch a player's ticket to Canton after 2 good seasons.

 
It is what it is said:
cobalt_27 said:
It is what it is said:
cobalt_27 said:
It is what it is said:
:no:
:D Swann is in the HOF, that ain't changing... :goodposting:
I know, but your statistical argument of "dominance" decompensated in an instant. If the criteria is SB appearances, fine. We'll just be inducting a bunch of fellow unworthy candidates to join Swann.
I never said Swann dominated statistically...I have always maintained Swann dominated on the field. And that the stats Swann did produce, were enough for me to give him the nod. Swann hit my five year qualifier that we spoke about earlier in the thread.
Based on your circular definition of dominance, then.
 
It is what it is said:
As I showed, from 2000-2010 there will be a minimum of 9 HOF WR's alone...Harrison, Owens, Holt, Moss, Johnson, Smith, Ward, Boldin, Fitz, Wayne (that's 10). There are still alot of top level WR's left in this decade...Walker, Williams etc.
As you showed....you're just hilarious.
 
It is what it is said:
chitlins3 said:
It is what it is said:
chitlins3 said:
It is what it is said:
:banned:

Talk about imaginary numbers...I asked for your list of HOF WR's from these time period's once before in here, and you ignored my request.

How about producing these HOF WR's from these time period's? :goodposting:
He posted the link in post #309
Post the names and years for me. I am not researching everybody's argument for them here...
What the hey, I'm feeling generousWR 1978 1 6 6 James Lofton Packers Stanford 2003

1976 4 25 117 Steve Largent Oilers Tulsa 1995

1974 1 21 21 Lynn Swann Steelers USC 2001

1974 4 4 82 John Stallworth Steelers Alabama A&M 2002

1969 4 15 93 Charlie Joiner Oilers Grambling 1996

1965 2 0 0 Fred Biletnikoff Raiders Florida State 1988

1965 3 11 39 Fred Biletnikoff Lions Florida State 1988

1964 1 11 11 Paul Warfield Browns Ohio State 1983

1962 1 8 8 Lance Alworth 49ers Arkansas 1978

1962 2 0 9 Lance Alworth Raiders Arkansas 1978

1957 3 6 31 Tommy McDonald Eagles Oklahoma 1998

1957 9 12 109 Don Maynard Giants Texas-El Paso 1987

1954 20 3 232 Raymond Berry Colts Southern Methodist 1973

1947 10 8 103 Dante Lavelli Rams Ohio State 1975

1945 1 5 5 Elroy Hirsch Rams Michigan/Wisconsin 1968

1945 5 9 41 Pete Pihos Eagles Indiana 1970

1945 11 5 103 Tom Fears Rams UCLA 1970

0 0 0 Don Hutson Alabama 1963
Just a list based on the years they were drafted. Doesn't pertain to the discussion points. Largent, Lofton, Stallworth, Joiner all got the majority of their production post '78, once the rules were changed. Which makes 12 HOF WR's in 40 years of pre '78 production. Breaks down to 3 per decade, as was already discussed.As I showed, from 2000-2010 there will be a minimum of 9 HOF WR's alone...Harrison, Owens, Holt, Moss, Johnson, Smith, Ward, Boldin, Fitz, Wayne (that's 10). There are still alot of top level WR's left in this decade...Walker, Williams etc.

Nothing's changed, WR's entering the HOF will show a serious increase.
Serious question then, why aren't guys like Monk, Irvin, Reed, Ellard, Gary Clark, Fryar, et al getting in? They all played post '79, and put up guadier numbers than their predecesors before the rule change. I realize some of them have only been eligible a few years, but the only ones we even hear a buzz about possibly getting in are Irvin and Monk.
 
It is what it is said:
Also, on your assertion that Boldin has the best start to a career at the position outside of Moss... it took me about 5 minutes to find this:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/HayeBo00.htm

Bob Hayes was #4 in receiving yards, #1 in TD's, and #10 in yards from scrimmage, and 3rd in rush/rec TD's in his rookie season.

He was #2 in receiving yards, #1 in receiving TD's, #7 in yards from scrimmage, and #4 in rec/rush TD in his 2nd season.

Boldin was #3 in receptions, #3 in receiving yards and didn't rank in TD's his first season. He didn't rank top 10 in any category in his 2nd season.

Boldin doesn't even have as many TD's in his career thusfar as Hayes got in those first 2 seasons. Playing 14 games a season mind you.

Clearly Hayes' start to his career is far more impressive, and I'm sure there are other examples.
Anquan Boldin56 Games

342 Receptions

4605 Rec Yards

20 Touchdowns

116 Rushing Yards

Bob Hayes

54 Games

212 Receptions

4142 Rec Yards

45 Touchdowns

-7 Rushing Yards
Bob Hayes, played in 1965. Anquan Boldin, played in 2003.If you can't see the difference and how they rated amongst their peers at the time, after all of this "pre chuck" "post chuck" garbage you've been debating, you're a real piece of work.

ETA: You also might want to qualify what you mean by "best to start his career outside of Moss". I assumed you meant first 1 or 2 seasons, because that's the only way that statement actually qualifies. Now you're using 4 year stats for Boldin, and Holt's 4 year stats trump those. Is this your MO? Lay out intentionally ambiguous statements and then try to skew the numbers to fit them?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is what it is said:
I never said Swann dominated statistically...I have always maintained Swann dominated on the field. And that the stats Swann did produce, were enough for me to give him the nod. Swann hit my five year qualifier that we spoke about earlier in the thread.
But we must have some criteria statistically as a minimum to get in the HOF imo. I believe Swannie or any players dominance for 5-6 years (Sayers etc) is the bare minimum. As MarshallRob has shown, Swannie was the #2 WR from '75-'79, over a five year stretch.
So, I'm guessing you've backpedaled way off this previous post, no? Swannie drops from #2 to #5 under the MarshallRob standard, and one can hardly call #5 "dominant," right. Shouldn't that be reserved for 1,2 or 3? As the "bare minimum".Shouldn't Swann's other 40% of noncontributory seasons also be a negative factor? Or, is he just made of teflon to any critical analysis on your part?

 
It is what it is said:
Also, on your assertion that Boldin has the best start to a career at the position outside of Moss... it took me about 5 minutes to find this:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/HayeBo00.htm

Bob Hayes was #4 in receiving yards, #1 in TD's, and #10 in yards from scrimmage, and 3rd in rush/rec TD's in his rookie season.

He was #2 in receiving yards, #1 in receiving TD's, #7 in yards from scrimmage, and #4 in rec/rush TD in his 2nd season.

Boldin was #3 in receptions, #3 in receiving yards and didn't rank in TD's his first season. He didn't rank top 10 in any category in his 2nd season.

Boldin doesn't even have as many TD's in his career thusfar as Hayes got in those first 2 seasons. Playing 14 games a season mind you.

Clearly Hayes' start to his career is far more impressive, and I'm sure there are other examples.
Anquan Boldin56 Games

342 Receptions

4605 Rec Yards

20 Touchdowns

116 Rushing Yards

Bob Hayes

54 Games

212 Receptions

4142 Rec Yards

45 Touchdowns

-7 Rushing Yards
Bob Hayes, played in 1965. Anquan Boldin, played in 2003.If you can't see the difference and how they rated amongst their peers at the time, after all of this "pre chuck" "post chuck" garbage you've been debating, you're a real piece of work.

ETA: You also might want to qualify what you mean by "best to start his career outside of Moss". I assumed you meant first 1 or 2 seasons, because that's the only way that statement actually qualifies. Now you're using 4 year stats for Boldin, and Holt's 4 year stats trump those. Is this your MO? Lay out intentionally ambiguous statements and then try to skew the numbers to fit them?
Like I said before, this guy is "all over the map." He just throws stuff out there, and when it gets refuted, he backpedals and works on a different line of argument that, subsequently gets trounced again. Changing definitions, creating circular statements (e.g., he's dominant because I said he's dominant)...these are the hallmarks of a guy who doesn't have much of an argument to stand on.

 
It is what it is said:
From '75-'79 Swann was the #2 overall WR in the NFL behind Branch. That is the 5 year time frame I gave you in my OP as a minimum for a HOF player in my book. Sayers got his on a 5 year window, and you say he should be in. You say Brady should be in if his career ended today, his is the same basic window.
the 5 yr time frame can't be applied accross all positions....you can't say, "well Sayers did it in 5 yrs, so let's look at Swann"one must compare the body of work/longevity accross the same position---of the 17 modern era WR's, Swanns career is the shortest...virtually every other WR elected that played in the 60's or later played at least 11 yrs, and as a group they played for ~14--5 more than Swann

and in the middle of the "5 yr time frame" you quote as gospel, he puts up:

28-516-3, in 1976 :sadbanana:

look, the guy had some nice years, as 3 Pro Bowls would indicate---but for a 9 yr career, I would expect more (as Mr Sayers did, landing the honor 4 times in the 5 yr period he really played)

 
It is what it is said:
From '75-'79 Swann was the #2 overall WR in the NFL behind Branch. That is the 5 year time frame I gave you in my OP as a minimum for a HOF player in my book. Sayers got his on a 5 year window, and you say he should be in. You say Brady should be in if his career ended today, his is the same basic window.
the 5 yr time frame can't be applied accross all positions....you can't say, "well Sayers did it in 5 yrs, so let's look at Swann"one must compare the body of work/longevity accross the same position---of the 17 modern era WR's, Swanns career is the shortest...virtually every other WR elected that played in the 60's or later played at least 11 yrs, and as a group they played for ~14--5 more than Swann

and in the middle of the "5 yr time frame" you quote as gospel, he puts up:

28-516-3, in 1976 :unsure:

look, the guy had some nice years, as 3 Pro Bowls would indicate---but for a 9 yr career, I would expect more (as Mr Sayers did, landing the honor 4 times in the 5 yr period he really played)
:mellow: And, he wasn't even the #2 receiver that "it is" wants to trump. Talking out of both sides of his mouth, he says stats matter when they support his argument, and when the real data are crunched and arrive at a less attractive conclusion, he says, "Nah, they don't matter."

Again, using his reliance on fantasy football to determine relative rankings, those five years of "dominance" yielded a WR5 ranking. His short career (a negative that few should be able to overcome) was represented by 4 miserable years, statistically.

 
It is what it is said:
It is what it is said:
I never said Swann dominated statistically...I have always maintained Swann dominated on the field. And that the stats Swann did produce, were enough for me to give him the nod. Swann hit my five year qualifier that we spoke about earlier in the thread.
But we must have some criteria statistically as a minimum to get in the HOF imo. I believe Swannie or any players dominance for 5-6 years (Sayers etc) is the bare minimum. As MarshallRob has shown, Swannie was the #2 WR from '75-'79, over a five year stretch.
So, I'm guessing you've backpedaled way off this previous post, no? Swannie drops from #2 to #5 under the MarshallRob standard, and one can hardly call #5 "dominant," right. Shouldn't that be reserved for 1,2 or 3? As the "bare minimum".Shouldn't Swann's other 40% of noncontributory seasons also be a negative factor? Or, is he just made of teflon to any critical analysis on your part?
Notice I said "Swannie or any players dominance for 5-6 years"...not stat dominance.
I noticed, actually, that you said, "But we must have some criteria statistically as a minimum to get into the HOF, imo." And, then you followed it up the very next sentence with "I believe Swannie or any players dominance for 5-6 years...is the bare minimum."So, in that second sentence, you're saying that "dominance" was not referring to the "statistical criteria" you referenced in the first sentence?

In a related question, Do you have any other way to demonstrate his dominance other than the fact that you say he's dominant?

 
It is what it is said:
Like I said before, this guy is "all over the map." He just throws stuff out there, and when it gets refuted, he backpedals and works on a different line of argument that, subsequently gets trounced again. Changing definitions, creating circular statements (e.g., he's dominant because I said he's dominant)...these are the hallmarks of a guy who doesn't have much of an argument to stand on.
No, you have weakly attempted to create this perception. I have always maintained that Swann dominated on the field. You are the stat freak here cobalt. It's typical of guys who love baseball...and you mentioned Sandy Koufax. Personally I hate baseball, baseball sucks...very boring. The guys who like it are mostly stat freaks...you carry this over into your football discussion and make it your priority. Football isn't all about stats...one day you might learn this.
Well, you're sort of off on your assumptions here. But, the main point is that, if you want to use warm and fuzzies to support Swann's induction, I'm fine with that. For instance, my dad thinks Swann is a sure-thing when it comes to the Hall, but he dismisses the statistics as irrelevant to that conclusion. And, I'm fine with that. I disagree, because I think the stats have to come into play at some point. But, I can accept his approach to the Hall, which is different than mine.But, once you start--as you did--arguing for Swann's statistical merits, you lose the case with just about every jury out there. I was responding to your assertion of his "dominance," and you have intermittently tried to infuse data-driven arguments, all of which have been thoroughly debunked as they relate to "dominance." Your perception is your own, and I will only argue my own perception against that, and nothing more. But, don't bring stats to this party, because the data clearly make him an outlier in the HOF community.
 
It is what it is said:
It is what it is said:
It is what it is said:
Again, why is everyone trying to compare Swann to Stallworth? They are both HOFers.
I think the argument for many of us goes like this:Stallworth - Hall of Fame :doh: Swann - Hall of Fame :wall:
The problem with this is it is based soley on regular season statistics. Swann was the more productive receiver of the two in the 70's before they instituted the 5 yard chuck rule. The 5 yard chuck rule is what broke out the passing game and statistics in the NFL. Stallworth accumulated his best stats, and the majority of his stats after the 5 yard chuck rule came into place...while Swann accumulated his best stats, and the majority of his stats before the 5 yard chuck rule came into place. Thus it can easily be stated, the Swann performed better than Stallworth, under much tougher circumstances...
Maybe you missed this from before, but comparing the years they played together, on a per-game basis (Swann = 115 games; Stallworth = 106), they were relative equals:ReceptionsSwann: 2.92/gameStallwo: 2.82/gameYards:Swann: 47.5/gameStallwo: 50.1/gameYards Per Reception:Swann: 16.3Stallwo: 17.4TDs:Swann: 0.44/gameStallwo: 0.42/game
WTF does this have to do with my statement of Swann accumulating much better stats under the much tougher 5 yard chuck rule?Swann'75 1st in rec touchdowns, 8th in rec yards, 7th in total touchdowns'77 6th in rec touchdowns, 4th in rec yards, 7th in receptions'78 2nd in rec touchdowns, 7th in rec yards, 7th in receptions, 5th in total touchdownsStallworth'77 6th in rec touchdowns, 5th in rec yards'78 4th in rec touchdownsAs you can see, Swann owns Stallworth statistically in the pre 5 yard chuck rule era. While Stallworth accumulates the majority of his stats when the Alfred Jenkins and Roy Green's of the football world were dominating statistically.
:cry: :hey:
You keep hi-fiving yourself on the stats stuff with Swann. Why do you keep doing this when (a) there's nothing to demonstrate his dominance in any of the data and (b) you keep dismissing the stats as irrelevant?Again, my advice to you is to leave the stats arguments alone. They keep biting you in the ### every time you try to bring them up. Swann's HOF induction has nothing to do with the statistics he accumulated in any period, other than the two Cowboy SBs and the highlight clips we've seen on constant loops in the media.
 
It is what it is said:
Football isn't all about stats...one day you might learn this.
One day you might learn this, because there aren't going to be 10 WR's drafted in this decade that make the HOF despite where their stats may rank compared to guys in the HOF from other eras.
 
It is what it is said:
It is what it is said:
It is what it is said:
It is what it is said:
Again, why is everyone trying to compare Swann to Stallworth? They are both HOFers.
I think the argument for many of us goes like this:Stallworth - Hall of Fame :lmao: Swann - Hall of Fame :shrug:
The problem with this is it is based soley on regular season statistics. Swann was the more productive receiver of the two in the 70's before they instituted the 5 yard chuck rule. The 5 yard chuck rule is what broke out the passing game and statistics in the NFL. Stallworth accumulated his best stats, and the majority of his stats after the 5 yard chuck rule came into place...while Swann accumulated his best stats, and the majority of his stats before the 5 yard chuck rule came into place. Thus it can easily be stated, the Swann performed better than Stallworth, under much tougher circumstances...
Maybe you missed this from before, but comparing the years they played together, on a per-game basis (Swann = 115 games; Stallworth = 106), they were relative equals:ReceptionsSwann: 2.92/gameStallwo: 2.82/gameYards:Swann: 47.5/gameStallwo: 50.1/gameYards Per Reception:Swann: 16.3Stallwo: 17.4TDs:Swann: 0.44/gameStallwo: 0.42/game
WTF does this have to do with my statement of Swann accumulating much better stats under the much tougher 5 yard chuck rule?Swann'75 1st in rec touchdowns, 8th in rec yards, 7th in total touchdowns'77 6th in rec touchdowns, 4th in rec yards, 7th in receptions'78 2nd in rec touchdowns, 7th in rec yards, 7th in receptions, 5th in total touchdownsStallworth'77 6th in rec touchdowns, 5th in rec yards'78 4th in rec touchdownsAs you can see, Swann owns Stallworth statistically in the pre 5 yard chuck rule era. While Stallworth accumulates the majority of his stats when the Alfred Jenkins and Roy Green's of the football world were dominating statistically.
:yes: :hey:
You keep hi-fiving yourself on Swann. Why do you keep doing this when (a) there's nothing to demonstrate his dominance in any of the data and (b) you keep dismissing the stats as irrelevant?
Is Swann in the HOF? :DAnd quit trying to tell everybody here that you could cover Swann one on one. Nobody believes you cobalt...why dontcha just spew out some stats for us to laugh at.
Spoken like a man who obviously lost this argument.Carry on with your one-man high fiving. :D
 
Wow, I was offline all day, saw that this thread had 2-3 more pages, and wasted 10 minutes of my life reading them. Some nice posts by DrJ and Yudkin, among a few others, but It Is totally sabotaged all possible value in this thread. :hey:

I'm not sure I have ever seen one poster in one thread post so many times when he so clearly has no clue. Congrats on that It Is.

 
It is what it is said:
It is what it is said:
It is what it is said:
It is what it is said:
It is what it is said:
:lmao:

I love how the Swann lovefest continues with this guy. Wasn't one day of constant blather enough for you?

Face it, 58% of the folks here look at Swann and correctly conclude that he is not HOF worthy. One committee finally buckled after 14 years of denial and Swann's constant whimpering and gave him a bust. What else do you want? To rewrite the history that we already understand?

Swann played on some great teams and was no more a contributor than any one of the other 8 HOF players that were part of that Steeler dynasty. He was a good talent and had 2 excellent games (and two fantastic catches). Beyond that, can't you just accept that the Hall got your boy in, you should be happy about that, and give up on the argument? You keep saying stats aren't important, yet you keep going back to them. Statistically, Swann compared to his peers in the pre- and post-chuck era, are pedestrian and noncontributory to his induction. What got him in is the pretty face, his constant whining, and the fact that he was a star in 2 SBs, while collecting 2 additional rings, gravy-training off one of the most dominant franchises in sports history.

Let it go, my friend. Just let it go.
:D From '75-'79 Swann was the #2 overall WR in the NFL behind Branch. That is the 5 year time frame I gave you in my OP as a minimum for a HOF player in my book. Sayers got his on a 5 year window, and you say he should be in. You say Brady should be in if his career ended today, his is the same basic window.

The fact that Swann dominated his position on the field, came up big in the most important games, played big against other HOF DB's in big games, has a Super Bowl MVP (which could easily be 2), has 4 SB rings...these facts combined with his 5 year run as the #2 overall WR in the NFL gets him in from where I sit. :D
He was #2 according to fantasy football rules. That's your argument? :lmao:
Swann was 1st in touchdowns, 4th in receiving yards and 6th in receptions. Yes, this adds up to #2 overall.
1 + 4 + 6 = 2 :X

:shock: :X

:o :X :confused:

Please explain this one.
My bad, it should have read 1st, 4th and 4th IIRC. Would have to crunch the numbers, or check MarshallRob's post to see if he had it.
What's this fantasy league's scoring system?
So you're saying that a WR who is 1st in touchdowns, 4th in receptions and 4th in yards over a 5 year period is not impressive? There are many HOF WR's out there who will disagree with you :D
First of all, I dispute the 1/4/4 rankings. I have Swann at 229/3774/37, which gives him 7/6/2 rankings in that time period. Second of all, most fantasy systems don't take receptions into account, and there is great variety in how yardage is scored. So, this whole business about him being #2 ranked in that period based on fantasy statistics is catastrophically spurious.Still, you're operating on some false assumptions about his rankings to begin with. Here's how the top-10 stack up in that '75-'79 period:

RECEPTIONS:

PearsonD 251

RashadAh 250

Carmicha 244

BranchCl 238

Burrough 234

RuckerRe 231

SwannLyn 229

JoinerCh 227

LargentS 224

MooreNat 221

YARDAGE

PearsonD 4238

Burrough 4187

BranchCl 4097

JacksonH 3959

JoinerCh 3939

SwannLyn 3774

LargentS 3753

Carmicha 3751

GrayMel3 3712

RuckerRe 3653

TOUCHDOWNS

Carmicha 38

SwannLyn 37

MooreNat 36

BranchCl 34

WhiteSam 32

Burrough 31

JacksonH 31

LargentS 31

Stallwor 30

PearsonD 27
Fair enough, I'll take your word for it. As I said before, "IIRC"...I wasn't sure what the exact numbers MarshallRob had show to arrive at his figures. So Swann finishes 2nd in touchdowns, 1 touchdown away from being 1st, that's big for me.

Swann finishes 7th in receptions, only 9 receptions from moving up to 4th, that's very solid too.

And 6th in yards during this time.

He had a nice YPR comparatively.

I got no problem with these numbers, they still show him to be a top WR during this 5 year stretch.

Swann is still in from where I sit. I watched him dominate his opposition on the field. I watched him dominate his opposition in the biggest games. And I watched him dominate some of the best DB's in the NFL. Good enough for me... :thumbup:
I can't believe this thread is still going. Anyway, I included rushing yards and TD's also which may account for the discrepancy. Swann scored a rushing TD in the time span in question so he is tied for first in TD's. I think I rounded some numbers too but Yudkin posted the super-accurate totals earlier.

And I was not arguing the voters were right in voting Swann in. Just looking at his case in the best possible light.

 
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.
You realize that Bradshaw only completed 9 passes that game, don't you? And only 4 to WRs. The Steelers weren't exactly a pass happy team back then.
 
I can't believe this thread is still going. Anyway, I included rushing yards and TD's also which may account for the discrepancy. Swann scored a rushing TD in the time span in question so he is tied for first in TD's. I think I rounded some numbers too but Yudkin posted the super-accurate totals earlier. And I was not arguing the voters were right in voting Swann in. Just looking at his case in the best possible light.
Considering the fact that he had 72 lifetime rushing yards and is behind Joiner by ~150 yards to climb the next link in the hierarchy, I doubt that would have much of an impact.I'm guessing your fantasy ranking did not include PPR, correct? At best, in Swann's best 5 years, he ranks 7/6/1, which still makes him WR5. Again, the argument for Swann going into the Hall should never reference his statistics. I can understand folks feeling he's iconic and clutch and all that. And, if that's what the Hall should induct, fine. I disagree on many cases (Swann included), but I understand that argument. But, not one that tries to pimp his stats. His production numbers make for a bad sales pitch every way you dice them up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's some other things for a guy like Terrell Davis.

RB's drafted by decade:

50's: 9

60's: 5

70's: 5

80's: 3

So, we should probably see a couple more drafted in the 80's. And you're figuring that we should get the top 5 RB's from the "90's". Now, Terrell Davis' run may have been brief, but surely he's among the top 5 RB's drafted in the 90's.

I figure the short list from that time period would be something like:

1) Emmitt

2) Faulk

3) C Martin

4) Bettis

5) T Davis

...

E George, R Watters, C Dillon, A Green, T Barber, F Taylor, E James, R Williams

Emmitt and Faulk are shoe ins, Curtis Martin and Bettis are very likely. Then after that, which guy on that list would rank ahead of Terrell Davis? Edge was interesting, but now in Arizona...

 
The Hall of Fame doesn't have any value whatsoever. Its an opinion poll. Because of that, the entire thing is subject to massive flaws. Once you realize that, then the Swann thing doesn't bother you.

 
Here's some other things for a guy like Terrell Davis.RB's drafted by decade:50's: 960's: 570's: 580's: 3So, we should probably see a couple more drafted in the 80's. And you're figuring that we should get the top 5 RB's from the "90's". Now, Terrell Davis' run may have been brief, but surely he's among the top 5 RB's drafted in the 90's. I figure the short list from that time period would be something like:1) Emmitt2) Faulk3) C Martin4) Bettis5) T Davis...E George, R Watters, C Dillon, A Green, T Barber, F Taylor, E James, R WilliamsEmmitt and Faulk are shoe ins, Curtis Martin and Bettis are very likely. Then after that, which guy on that list would rank ahead of Terrell Davis? Edge was interesting, but now in Arizona...
Are you ignoring Thurman Thomas? Or counting him in the 80s?
 
Here's some other things for a guy like Terrell Davis.RB's drafted by decade:50's: 960's: 570's: 580's: 3So, we should probably see a couple more drafted in the 80's. And you're figuring that we should get the top 5 RB's from the "90's". Now, Terrell Davis' run may have been brief, but surely he's among the top 5 RB's drafted in the 90's. I figure the short list from that time period would be something like:1) Emmitt2) Faulk3) C Martin4) Bettis5) T Davis...E George, R Watters, C Dillon, A Green, T Barber, F Taylor, E James, R WilliamsEmmitt and Faulk are shoe ins, Curtis Martin and Bettis are very likely. Then after that, which guy on that list would rank ahead of Terrell Davis? Edge was interesting, but now in Arizona...
Are you ignoring Thurman Thomas? Or counting him in the 80s?
I was going to ask the same thing. Plus, I don't take it as a given that we'll get a couple more drafted in the 1980s... did you have any candidates in mind? I can't think of any. Ricky Watters is the best I can think of off the top of my head, and I do think he is more worthy than Davis, but I don't think he'll get in.
 
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.
:ptts: I think you STATS freaks are nuts. When I watched Lynn Swann play, I knew I was watching a Hall of Famer. He was THAT good. When I watched Art Monk or Jerome Bettis, nothing about them said that they were a Hall of Famer. If you dont pass the look test than no amount of stats can make you a Hall of Famer. Believe what you see on the field, not what you read in the STAT books.
Don't you think that only basing things on what YOU see and interpret is severely lacking in perspective? I mean it is very clear people's own bias' come into play when evaluating based only what YOU see. Do you watch EVERY play? Just as important, did you watch EVERY play from Art Monk or Jerome Bettis or anyone you are comparing him to?Too many people see highlight plays on ESPN and they make that their judgment, but maybe they don't see the 4 drops in a game or the illegal block in the back that brought back the 30 yard TD run (just an example)
 
I'm ***REALLY** not for dragging this thread out any longer, but since some people have been harping on comparing 70s WRs to 70s receivers and counting some years but not others, IMO the only equal ground is to look at receivers from that decade and establish a level comparison on a PPG basis.

Here are the only WR that averaged 7 fantasy PPG that played in at least 50 games in the 70s counting their stats ONLY from 1970-1979 (0 PPR).

Steve Largent 9.47

Sammy White 8.59

Nat Moore 8.24

Lynn Swann 8.04

Harold Jackson 8.01

Paul Warfield 7.97

Isaac Curtis 7.93

Harold Carmichael 7.71

Cliff Branch 7.64

Gene Washington 7.61

Drew Pearson 7.61

Otis Taylor 7.44

John Gilliam 7.39

Mel Gray 7.33

Alfred Jenkins 7.10

People can form their own conclusions from that, as clearly people in this thread have been looking at sets of data and concluding vastly different things.

 
Here's some other things for a guy like Terrell Davis.RB's drafted by decade:50's: 960's: 570's: 580's: 3So, we should probably see a couple more drafted in the 80's. And you're figuring that we should get the top 5 RB's from the "90's". Now, Terrell Davis' run may have been brief, but surely he's among the top 5 RB's drafted in the 90's. I figure the short list from that time period would be something like:1) Emmitt2) Faulk3) C Martin4) Bettis5) T Davis...E George, R Watters, C Dillon, A Green, T Barber, F Taylor, E James, R WilliamsEmmitt and Faulk are shoe ins, Curtis Martin and Bettis are very likely. Then after that, which guy on that list would rank ahead of Terrell Davis? Edge was interesting, but now in Arizona...
Is it worth pointing out that Terrell Davis was on the 90's All-Decade Team, including over Bettis, who had five of his six most productive seasons in the 90's?
 
Swann is a good example of a player that made the HOF strictly (IMHO) by the Super Bowl highlight reels.
We'll be saying the same things about Troy Aikman and Tom Brady some years down the line. They simply were on the winning side of the games that mattered most.
WOW? Is that sarcasm or do you not think they were main cogs of those teams?So your saying that the Steelers would have accomplished the same things with Calvin Sweeney? The Cowboys would have done the same things with Steve Walsh? and the Patriots would have won all those Super Bowls with Drew Bledsoe?
What I'm saying is that those QBs were not the reason the teams won, and apart from the team, are not worthy of HOF material. However, those players, in the right position, on the right team, made a name for themselves, which results in Aikman's case, and will likely result in Brady's case, in a HOF enshrinement.As for the Steelers - others have made cases about that.In the case of the Cowboys - Walsh was not a bad QB at all. He didn't have as strong an arm. But remember after DAL let him go, other teams viewed him as starter quality (bad teams albeit). Aikman was the better QB, no doubt, but the Boys would have done well with Walsh as well. He did after all lead the miserable Bears to the playoffs. However Danny White was a far better QB than Aikman, but for a much shorter time.In the case of the Patriots, I do believe Bledsoe would have had as much success as Brady. Remember, Bledsoe led the Patriots to the Super Bowl early in his career. He only had one season with Belichek really, while Belichek was installing his system still. The first year the Pats went to the SB under Belichek, Bledsoe won them a playoff game, and played arguably as well, if not better (no INTs) than Brady. The only flaw with Bledsoe in NE, is that the team looked to him to win for them, whereas when Brady came in, the team stepped it up to protect their young QB, and didn't expect him to win for them.
Wasn't Danny White something like 11-1 subbing for an injured Aikman? It wasn't hard to win with that much talent around you
I don't think Danny White was with the Cowboys when Aikman was there? I may be wong though?
You are correct, Danny was there before Aikman. I am trying to find the answer but I saw a stat that showed Dallas' record was 11-1 in games that Aikman didn't start, but couldn't find the right break down to prove that. I was thinking Jason Garrett when I wrote Danny White, but it wasn't just Garrett, it was Cunningham, Steve buerlien (sp)and others. Anyone? The point was that as long as you didn't have "Vicious Ball Sweat" back there, the Dallas team was so good they could win without much QB play.
 
Ok, Swann did have a 5-year stretch from 1975-1979 where you could argue he was the best receiver in football (and most football fans of the time did think he was right up there). Of all WR's playing between 1975-1979, Swann was 5th in catches, 6th in yards, and tied for first in TD's. He was tied for second in fantasy points. Here's the top 10 WR's in fantasy points for those 5 years:Branch 613Swann 605Burrough 605Carmichael 603Pearson 585H. Jackson 582N. Moore 580Joiner 531Stallworth 516M. Gray 509So based on regular season stats alone, you could make the argument that at his peak Swann was the best receiver in football (and he was selected to the NFL's all-decade team for the 1970's).
Using fantasy points as a guide, Swann is hardly the clear choice in that 5-year stretch. Using all combinations of 5-years since the merger, here are all the WR that ranked the Top 3 in any 5-year interval:John GilliamGene Washington Fred BiletnikoffHarold JacksonCliff BranchHarold CarmichaelMel GrayKen BurroughSteve LargentSammy WhiteJohn JeffersonJames LoftonWes ChandlerMike QuickMark ClaytonJerry RiceDrew HillGary ClarkHenry EllardSterling SharpeAndre RisonMichael IrvinHerman MooreCris CarterIsaac BruceAntonio FreemanJimmy SmithMarvin HarrisonTerrell OwensRod SmithRandy MossTorry HoltChad JohnsonBasically, all of these guys can lay the same claim that Swann can (Top 3 at any point in a 5-year stretch) but obviously they don't have 4 rings and highlight reel catches in key games to their credit.
Very :thumbup:
 
switz said:
DrJ said:
Here's some other things for a guy like Terrell Davis.RB's drafted by decade:50's: 960's: 570's: 580's: 3So, we should probably see a couple more drafted in the 80's. And you're figuring that we should get the top 5 RB's from the "90's". Now, Terrell Davis' run may have been brief, but surely he's among the top 5 RB's drafted in the 90's. I figure the short list from that time period would be something like:1) Emmitt2) Faulk3) C Martin4) Bettis5) T Davis...E George, R Watters, C Dillon, A Green, T Barber, F Taylor, E James, R WilliamsEmmitt and Faulk are shoe ins, Curtis Martin and Bettis are very likely. Then after that, which guy on that list would rank ahead of Terrell Davis? Edge was interesting, but now in Arizona...
Are you ignoring Thurman Thomas? Or counting him in the 80s?
He'd count as 80's. Going by decade drafted as a rough guideline.
 
Just Win Baby said:
switz said:
DrJ said:
Here's some other things for a guy like Terrell Davis.RB's drafted by decade:50's: 960's: 570's: 580's: 3So, we should probably see a couple more drafted in the 80's. And you're figuring that we should get the top 5 RB's from the "90's". Now, Terrell Davis' run may have been brief, but surely he's among the top 5 RB's drafted in the 90's. I figure the short list from that time period would be something like:1) Emmitt2) Faulk3) C Martin4) Bettis5) T Davis...E George, R Watters, C Dillon, A Green, T Barber, F Taylor, E James, R WilliamsEmmitt and Faulk are shoe ins, Curtis Martin and Bettis are very likely. Then after that, which guy on that list would rank ahead of Terrell Davis? Edge was interesting, but now in Arizona...
Are you ignoring Thurman Thomas? Or counting him in the 80s?
I was going to ask the same thing. Plus, I don't take it as a given that we'll get a couple more drafted in the 1980s... did you have any candidates in mind? I can't think of any. Ricky Watters is the best I can think of off the top of my head, and I do think he is more worthy than Davis, but I don't think he'll get in.
Watter is a 90's, he was drafted in 1991.Top 5 of the 80's are:1) Barry Sanders (already in)2) Dickerson (already in)3) Thurman Thomas4) Marcus Allen (already in)After this yeah, I'm drawing a blank.So, we'll go with 4 from the 80's.... Terrell may even make the top 4 from the 90's as well though. I have to say, given the standards that the hall has defined through it's current inductees, TD is a hall of famer.
 
Ghost Rider said:
DrJ said:
Here's some other things for a guy like Terrell Davis.RB's drafted by decade:50's: 960's: 570's: 580's: 3So, we should probably see a couple more drafted in the 80's. And you're figuring that we should get the top 5 RB's from the "90's". Now, Terrell Davis' run may have been brief, but surely he's among the top 5 RB's drafted in the 90's. I figure the short list from that time period would be something like:1) Emmitt2) Faulk3) C Martin4) Bettis5) T Davis...E George, R Watters, C Dillon, A Green, T Barber, F Taylor, E James, R WilliamsEmmitt and Faulk are shoe ins, Curtis Martin and Bettis are very likely. Then after that, which guy on that list would rank ahead of Terrell Davis? Edge was interesting, but now in Arizona...
Is it worth pointing out that Terrell Davis was on the 90's All-Decade Team, including over Bettis, who had five of his six most productive seasons in the 90's?
:goodposting: I'd say yes. It's pretty clear that TD was one of the top 4-5 RB's in the 90's.
 
Ghost Rider said:
DrJ said:
Here's some other things for a guy like Terrell Davis.RB's drafted by decade:50's: 960's: 570's: 580's: 3So, we should probably see a couple more drafted in the 80's. And you're figuring that we should get the top 5 RB's from the "90's". Now, Terrell Davis' run may have been brief, but surely he's among the top 5 RB's drafted in the 90's. I figure the short list from that time period would be something like:1) Emmitt2) Faulk3) C Martin4) Bettis5) T Davis...E George, R Watters, C Dillon, A Green, T Barber, F Taylor, E James, R WilliamsEmmitt and Faulk are shoe ins, Curtis Martin and Bettis are very likely. Then after that, which guy on that list would rank ahead of Terrell Davis? Edge was interesting, but now in Arizona...
Is it worth pointing out that Terrell Davis was on the 90's All-Decade Team, including over Bettis, who had five of his six most productive seasons in the 90's?
:goodposting: I'd say yes. It's pretty clear that TD was one of the top 4-5 RB's in the 90's.
Well, this is quickly hijacking the thread, but I'll add one more post on Davis. Personally I think Bettis is more deserving, and I have posted my reasoning many times in other threads. I think the fact that Davis didn't even make the final 15 in this, his first year of HOF eligibility, speaks volumes about his chances, which IMO are not good.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just Win Baby said:
switz said:
DrJ said:
Here's some other things for a guy like Terrell Davis.RB's drafted by decade:50's: 960's: 570's: 580's: 3So, we should probably see a couple more drafted in the 80's. And you're figuring that we should get the top 5 RB's from the "90's". Now, Terrell Davis' run may have been brief, but surely he's among the top 5 RB's drafted in the 90's. I figure the short list from that time period would be something like:1) Emmitt2) Faulk3) C Martin4) Bettis5) T Davis...E George, R Watters, C Dillon, A Green, T Barber, F Taylor, E James, R WilliamsEmmitt and Faulk are shoe ins, Curtis Martin and Bettis are very likely. Then after that, which guy on that list would rank ahead of Terrell Davis? Edge was interesting, but now in Arizona...
Are you ignoring Thurman Thomas? Or counting him in the 80s?
I was going to ask the same thing. Plus, I don't take it as a given that we'll get a couple more drafted in the 1980s... did you have any candidates in mind? I can't think of any. Ricky Watters is the best I can think of off the top of my head, and I do think he is more worthy than Davis, but I don't think he'll get in.
Watter is a 90's, he was drafted in 1991.Top 5 of the 80's are:1) Barry Sanders (already in)2) Dickerson (already in)3) Thurman Thomas4) Marcus Allen (already in)After this yeah, I'm drawing a blank.So, we'll go with 4 from the 80's.... Terrell may even make the top 4 from the 90's as well though. I have to say, given the standards that the hall has defined through it's current inductees, TD is a hall of famer.
OK, I was guessing on the draft years for Thomas & Watters. Agree that Thomas will make 4 from the 1980s, and I can't think of another deserving candidate. Some might say Roger Craig, but I don't think he is worthy.I don't know what you mean about the "standards that the hall has defined through its current inductees". I can only think of two things:1. Perhaps you are referring to other HOFers who had short careers as justifying Davis. For example, Sayers has been compared to Davis many times around here, and I have posted on the two of them in other threads. Suffice it to say I think Sayers is worthy and Davis isn't. But the bigger thing on this point is that it is not valid to compare players across eras. So this justification only works IMO if a contemporary of Davis were to get in with a very short career. Hasn't happened and won't.2. Perhaps you are referring to the "well Player X got in, so Davis deserves to get in" line of thinking, where presumably Davis outperformed Player X. This would often be the same problem of comparing across eras, for one thing. But, more importantly, IMO each player should stand on his own merits. That is, following this line of thinking could essentially serve to lower the bar over time. If an occasional player was put in who doesn't seem to necessarily have performed comparably to other HOFers (e.g., Namath, Swann), we shouldn't use that as justification to put more people in who haven't performed at HOF level.Now, maybe you were saying something completely different...
 
I think the fact that Davis didn't even make the final 15 in this, his first year of HOF eligibility. I think that speaks volumes about his chances, which IMO are not good.
I think it speaks volumes of how ridiculous a standard today's players are held to compared to those of the past. If Terrell Davis is one of the top 5 RB's of the 90's, he should be in the HOF. That's the standard that they established long ago.Look at this DB list, it's just sick: 1981 1 8 8 Ronnie Lott 49ers USC 2000 1976 1 5 5 Mike Haynes Patriots Arizona State 1997 1970 3 1 53 Mel Blount Steelers Southern 1989 1967 2 8 34 Lem Barney Lions Jackson State 1992 1967 9 3 214 Ken Houston Oilers Prairie View 1986 1964 2 3 17 Mel Renro Cowboys Oregon 1996 1964 2 4 18 Paul Krause Redskins Iowa 1998 1961 1 6 6 Jimmy Johnson 49ers UCLA 1994 1961 1 12 12 Herb Adderley Packers Michigan State 1980 1960 7 2 74 Larry Wilson Cardinals Utah 1978 1952 3 9 34 Yale Lary Lions Texas A&M 1979 1951 6 7 69 Jack Christiansen Lions Colorado State 1970 1951 9 12 110 Don Shula Browns John Carroll 1997 1947 20 9 184 Tom Landry Giants Texas 1990 0 0 0 Willie Brown Grambling State 1984 0 0 0 **** (Night Train) Lane Western Nebraska CC-Scottsbluff 1974 0 0 0 Emlen Tunnell Toledo 1967 0 0 0 Willie Wood USC 1989 So you're telling me that 7 of the top DB's played in the 60's? That Ronnie Lott is the only modern DB would could possibly compare to their greatness? They let the floodgate open long ago, time to give today's players fair representation rather than making the HOF the good old boy network.
 
Just Win Baby said:
switz said:
DrJ said:
Here's some other things for a guy like Terrell Davis.RB's drafted by decade:50's: 960's: 570's: 580's: 3So, we should probably see a couple more drafted in the 80's. And you're figuring that we should get the top 5 RB's from the "90's". Now, Terrell Davis' run may have been brief, but surely he's among the top 5 RB's drafted in the 90's. I figure the short list from that time period would be something like:1) Emmitt2) Faulk3) C Martin4) Bettis5) T Davis...E George, R Watters, C Dillon, A Green, T Barber, F Taylor, E James, R WilliamsEmmitt and Faulk are shoe ins, Curtis Martin and Bettis are very likely. Then after that, which guy on that list would rank ahead of Terrell Davis? Edge was interesting, but now in Arizona...
Are you ignoring Thurman Thomas? Or counting him in the 80s?
I was going to ask the same thing. Plus, I don't take it as a given that we'll get a couple more drafted in the 1980s... did you have any candidates in mind? I can't think of any. Ricky Watters is the best I can think of off the top of my head, and I do think he is more worthy than Davis, but I don't think he'll get in.
Watter is a 90's, he was drafted in 1991.Top 5 of the 80's are:1) Barry Sanders (already in)2) Dickerson (already in)3) Thurman Thomas4) Marcus Allen (already in)After this yeah, I'm drawing a blank.So, we'll go with 4 from the 80's.... Terrell may even make the top 4 from the 90's as well though. I have to say, given the standards that the hall has defined through it's current inductees, TD is a hall of famer.
OK, I was guessing on the draft years for Thomas & Watters. Agree that Thomas will make 4 from the 1980s, and I can't think of another deserving candidate. Some might say Roger Craig, but I don't think he is worthy.I don't know what you mean about the "standards that the hall has defined through its current inductees". I can only think of two things:1. Perhaps you are referring to other HOFers who had short careers as justifying Davis. For example, Sayers has been compared to Davis many times around here, and I have posted on the two of them in other threads. Suffice it to say I think Sayers is worthy and Davis isn't. But the bigger thing on this point is that it is not valid to compare players across eras. So this justification only works IMO if a contemporary of Davis were to get in with a very short career. Hasn't happened and won't.2. Perhaps you are referring to the "well Player X got in, so Davis deserves to get in" line of thinking, where presumably Davis outperformed Player X. This would often be the same problem of comparing across eras, for one thing. But, more importantly, IMO each player should stand on his own merits. That is, following this line of thinking could essentially serve to lower the bar over time. If an occasional player was put in who doesn't seem to necessarily have performed comparably to other HOFers (e.g., Namath, Swann), we shouldn't use that as justification to put more people in who haven't performed at HOF level.Now, maybe you were saying something completely different...
No, I'm referring to the fact that they dedided that 4-5 guys should get in from each era before by voting them in. They need to uphold that standard.Is Leroy Kelly one of the top 10 RB's in the last 37 years? Well, he's in the HOF...They decided that he was good enough amongst his peers to make it. So why should the standard for today's player be any different?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, this is quickly hijacking the thread, but I'll add one more post on Davis. Personally I think Bettis is more deserving, and I have posted my reasoning many times in other threads. I think the fact that Davis didn't even make the final 15 in this, his first year of HOF eligibility, speaks volumes about his chances, which IMO are not good.
He made the 25 semifinalists list this year, so it's not like the selection committee is neglecting to acknowledge he belongs in the discussion.I understand why people see his career length as a big mark against him, but I personally think Davis has a remarkable case for HOF worthiness.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just Win Baby said:
switz said:
DrJ said:
Here's some other things for a guy like Terrell Davis.RB's drafted by decade:50's: 960's: 570's: 580's: 3So, we should probably see a couple more drafted in the 80's. And you're figuring that we should get the top 5 RB's from the "90's". Now, Terrell Davis' run may have been brief, but surely he's among the top 5 RB's drafted in the 90's. I figure the short list from that time period would be something like:1) Emmitt2) Faulk3) C Martin4) Bettis5) T Davis...E George, R Watters, C Dillon, A Green, T Barber, F Taylor, E James, R WilliamsEmmitt and Faulk are shoe ins, Curtis Martin and Bettis are very likely. Then after that, which guy on that list would rank ahead of Terrell Davis? Edge was interesting, but now in Arizona...
Are you ignoring Thurman Thomas? Or counting him in the 80s?
I was going to ask the same thing. Plus, I don't take it as a given that we'll get a couple more drafted in the 1980s... did you have any candidates in mind? I can't think of any. Ricky Watters is the best I can think of off the top of my head, and I do think he is more worthy than Davis, but I don't think he'll get in.
Watter is a 90's, he was drafted in 1991.Top 5 of the 80's are:1) Barry Sanders (already in)2) Dickerson (already in)3) Thurman Thomas4) Marcus Allen (already in)After this yeah, I'm drawing a blank.So, we'll go with 4 from the 80's.... Terrell may even make the top 4 from the 90's as well though. I have to say, given the standards that the hall has defined through it's current inductees, TD is a hall of famer.
OK, I was guessing on the draft years for Thomas & Watters. Agree that Thomas will make 4 from the 1980s, and I can't think of another deserving candidate. Some might say Roger Craig, but I don't think he is worthy.I don't know what you mean about the "standards that the hall has defined through its current inductees". I can only think of two things:1. Perhaps you are referring to other HOFers who had short careers as justifying Davis. For example, Sayers has been compared to Davis many times around here, and I have posted on the two of them in other threads. Suffice it to say I think Sayers is worthy and Davis isn't. But the bigger thing on this point is that it is not valid to compare players across eras. So this justification only works IMO if a contemporary of Davis were to get in with a very short career. Hasn't happened and won't.2. Perhaps you are referring to the "well Player X got in, so Davis deserves to get in" line of thinking, where presumably Davis outperformed Player X. This would often be the same problem of comparing across eras, for one thing. But, more importantly, IMO each player should stand on his own merits. That is, following this line of thinking could essentially serve to lower the bar over time. If an occasional player was put in who doesn't seem to necessarily have performed comparably to other HOFers (e.g., Namath, Swann), we shouldn't use that as justification to put more people in who haven't performed at HOF level.Now, maybe you were saying something completely different...
No, I'm referring to the fact that they dedided that 4-5 guys should get in from each era before by voting them in. They need to uphold that standard.Is Leroy Kelly one of the top 10 RB's in the last 37 years? Well, he's in the HOF...They decided that he was good enough amongst his peers to make it. So why should the standard for today's player be any different?
I don't disagree that 4-5 RBs will and should get in from this era. But you are drawing the "era" line somewhat arbitrarily by using the calendar decade players were drafted.I actually think 6 guys will get in from Davis's "era": Thomas (drafted in 1988), Sanders (1989), Smith (1990), Bettis (1993), Faulk (1994), and Martin (1995). All of their careers wholly overlapped Davis's 4 good seasons. IMO they are all more worthy than Davis, and thus he does not merit induction based on comparison to his peers. The next "era" to me will be the one that includes Tomlinson and Alexander. :shrug:
 
I think the fact that Davis didn't even make the final 15 in this, his first year of HOF eligibility. I think that speaks volumes about his chances, which IMO are not good.
I think it speaks volumes of how ridiculous a standard today's players are held to compared to those of the past. If Terrell Davis is one of the top 5 RB's of the 90's, he should be in the HOF. That's the standard that they established long ago.Look at this DB list, it's just sick:

1981 1 8 8 Ronnie Lott 49ers USC 2000

1976 1 5 5 Mike Haynes Patriots Arizona State 1997

1970 3 1 53 Mel Blount Steelers Southern 1989

1967 2 8 34 Lem Barney Lions Jackson State 1992

1967 9 3 214 Ken Houston Oilers Prairie View 1986

1964 2 3 17 Mel Renro Cowboys Oregon 1996

1964 2 4 18 Paul Krause Redskins Iowa 1998

1961 1 6 6 Jimmy Johnson 49ers UCLA 1994

1961 1 12 12 Herb Adderley Packers Michigan State 1980

1960 7 2 74 Larry Wilson Cardinals Utah 1978

1952 3 9 34 Yale Lary Lions Texas A&M 1979

1951 6 7 69 Jack Christiansen Lions Colorado State 1970

1951 9 12 110 Don Shula Browns John Carroll 1997

1947 20 9 184 Tom Landry Giants Texas 1990

0 0 0 Willie Brown Grambling State 1984

0 0 0 **** (Night Train) Lane Western Nebraska CC-Scottsbluff 1974

0 0 0 Emlen Tunnell Toledo 1967

0 0 0 Willie Wood USC 1989

So you're telling me that 7 of the top DB's played in the 60's? That Ronnie Lott is the only modern DB would could possibly compare to their greatness?

They let the floodgate open long ago, time to give today's players fair representation rather than making the HOF the good old boy network.
To the bolded statement, the answer is obviously no. But you are neglecting the fact that Deion Sanders, Rod Woodson, and Darrell Green are not yet HOF eligible. All three were drafted in the 1980s and are HOF locks IMO.
 
Well, this is quickly hijacking the thread, but I'll add one more post on Davis. Personally I think Bettis is more deserving, and I have posted my reasoning many times in other threads. I think the fact that Davis didn't even make the final 15 in this, his first year of HOF eligibility, speaks volumes about his chances, which IMO are not good.
He made the 25 semifinalists list this year, so it's not like the selection committee is neglecting to acknowledge he belongs in the discussion.I understand why people see his career length as a big mark against him, but I personally think Davis has a remarkable case for HOF worthiness.
It is going to be an uphill battle for him IMO. How likely is it for him to surge from not in the 15 finalists to elected within the next 2 years? Unlikely IMO. And Thomas will likely be inducted during that time, then after 2 years will come a run of inductions that include Smith, Bettis, Martin, and Faulk. By the time the committee steers away from RBs for a couple years after that and returns to them, we'll be looking at Tomlinson, Alexander, and whoever else might emerge as HOF worthy. That's why I think not making the finalists list is a very bad indicator for Davis.
 
Here's some other things for a guy like Terrell Davis.RB's drafted by decade:50's: 960's: 570's: 580's: 3So, we should probably see a couple more drafted in the 80's. And you're figuring that we should get the top 5 RB's from the "90's". Now, Terrell Davis' run may have been brief, but surely he's among the top 5 RB's drafted in the 90's. I figure the short list from that time period would be something like:1) Emmitt2) Faulk3) C Martin4) Bettis5) T Davis...E George, R Watters, C Dillon, A Green, T Barber, F Taylor, E James, R WilliamsEmmitt and Faulk are shoe ins, Curtis Martin and Bettis are very likely. Then after that, which guy on that list would rank ahead of Terrell Davis? Edge was interesting, but now in Arizona...
Are you ignoring Thurman Thomas? Or counting him in the 80s?
I was going to ask the same thing. Plus, I don't take it as a given that we'll get a couple more drafted in the 1980s... did you have any candidates in mind? I can't think of any. Ricky Watters is the best I can think of off the top of my head, and I do think he is more worthy than Davis, but I don't think he'll get in.
Watter is a 90's, he was drafted in 1991.Top 5 of the 80's are:1) Barry Sanders (already in)2) Dickerson (already in)3) Thurman Thomas4) Marcus Allen (already in)After this yeah, I'm drawing a blank.So, we'll go with 4 from the 80's.... Terrell may even make the top 4 from the 90's as well though. I have to say, given the standards that the hall has defined through it's current inductees, TD is a hall of famer.
OK, I was guessing on the draft years for Thomas & Watters. Agree that Thomas will make 4 from the 1980s, and I can't think of another deserving candidate. Some might say Roger Craig, but I don't think he is worthy.I don't know what you mean about the "standards that the hall has defined through its current inductees". I can only think of two things:1. Perhaps you are referring to other HOFers who had short careers as justifying Davis. For example, Sayers has been compared to Davis many times around here, and I have posted on the two of them in other threads. Suffice it to say I think Sayers is worthy and Davis isn't. But the bigger thing on this point is that it is not valid to compare players across eras. So this justification only works IMO if a contemporary of Davis were to get in with a very short career. Hasn't happened and won't.2. Perhaps you are referring to the "well Player X got in, so Davis deserves to get in" line of thinking, where presumably Davis outperformed Player X. This would often be the same problem of comparing across eras, for one thing. But, more importantly, IMO each player should stand on his own merits. That is, following this line of thinking could essentially serve to lower the bar over time. If an occasional player was put in who doesn't seem to necessarily have performed comparably to other HOFers (e.g., Namath, Swann), we shouldn't use that as justification to put more people in who haven't performed at HOF level.Now, maybe you were saying something completely different...
No, I'm referring to the fact that they dedided that 4-5 guys should get in from each era before by voting them in. They need to uphold that standard.Is Leroy Kelly one of the top 10 RB's in the last 37 years? Well, he's in the HOF...They decided that he was good enough amongst his peers to make it. So why should the standard for today's player be any different?
I don't disagree that 4-5 RBs will and should get in from this era. But you are drawing the "era" line somewhat arbitrarily by using the calendar decade players were drafted.I actually think 6 guys will get in from Davis's "era": Thomas (drafted in 1988), Sanders (1989), Smith (1990), Bettis (1993), Faulk (1994), and Martin (1995). All of their careers wholly overlapped Davis's 4 good seasons. IMO they are all more worthy than Davis, and thus he does not merit induction based on comparison to his peers. The next "era" to me will be the one that includes Tomlinson and Alexander. :shrug:
Yeah, I guess that's true. Thomas and Sanders would fall more as 90's guys and there's just a big 5 year dead period for RB's between Dickerson/Allen and these other guys. The 80, 81, 84, 85, 86, and 87 drafts produced zilch in the way of HOF calibre RB's...it was just a bad time for RB's and none of those guys managed to stand out about the others. That didn't stop them from electing nearly every starting RB in the league from the 50's, I mean 8 of the league's 12 teams managed to draft HOF RB's from 1949 through 1957, with the Packers and Browns each adding a 2nd in 58. But I digress...
 
I don't disagree that 4-5 RBs will and should get in from this era. But you are drawing the "era" line somewhat arbitrarily by using the calendar decade players were drafted.I actually think 6 guys will get in from Davis's "era": Thomas (drafted in 1988), Sanders (1989), Smith (1990), Bettis (1993), Faulk (1994), and Martin (1995). All of their careers wholly overlapped Davis's 4 good seasons. IMO they are all more worthy than Davis, and thus he does not merit induction based on comparison to his peers. The next "era" to me will be the one that includes Tomlinson and Alexander. :shrug:
Yeah, I drew "era" to mean the decade when the player showed his dominance primarily. But you can also do it by decade drafted. I don't really have a problem with either method.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top