Steve Largent or Lynn Swann? (1 Viewer)

[Raider Nation]

We'll assume you are voting under the assumption that they are both in their prime, and both available in free agency. They will not be going to an expansion team.

They mentioned these guys on ESPN radio the other day. Wanted to see which WR you fine folks would rather have. If you're too young to remember them, please sit it out.



Personally, I'll take Largent.

- Caught passes in 177 straight games.

- Missed only 4 games his first 13 years!

- Selected to seven Pro Bowls.

- Eight 1,000 yard seasons.

Edited to illustrate what my conditions are.

 

[MarshallRob]

They mentioned these guys on ESPN radio the other day. Wanted to see which WR you fine folks would rather have. If you're too young to remember them, please sit it out.



Personally, I'll take Largent.

- Caught passes in 177 straight games.

- Missed only 4 games his first 13 years!

- Selected to seven Pro Bowls.

- Eight 1,000 yard seasons.

What are you wanting them for? A game? A season? An expansion team?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

One of the top five WRs ever to play the game, or a fringe HOFer who probably shouldn't have made it?Doesn't seem like a tough call.

 

[Chase Stuart]

One of the top five WRs ever to play the game, or a fringe HOFer who probably shouldn't have made it?

Doesn't seem like a tough call.

That's sort of how I saw it too.The real question I have is who will this guy be rooting for next Sunday.

 

[Kleck]

One of the top five WRs ever to play the game, or a fringe HOFer who probably shouldn't have made it?

Doesn't seem like a tough call.

This was my first thought as well.

 

[Raider Nation]

One of the top five WRs ever to play the game, or a fringe HOFer who probably shouldn't have made it?

Doesn't seem like a tough call.

I agree. I have written here in the past that Swann is one of the HoF'ers who is undeserving of the honor. I then got ripped by hoards of Steeler fans who kept telling me how he came up big in big games. But his regular season numbers were pedestrian.I don't think Namath is a Hall of Famer, either. The guy has 47 more picks than TD passes, for crying out loud. Let's face it, he got in solely because he legitimized the AFL after his bold prediction.

And he was on The Brady Bunch.

But that's another discussion for another day....

 

[Tau837]

Largent. Obviously.

 

[MarshallRob]

Hopefully, all the people who have posted so far will spend a lot of time watching NFL Films Super Bowl highlights next week on ESPN Classic. If you want a receiver for just one game and that game is the Super Bowl, you're going to have a very hard time picking someone other than Lynn Swann. If you're drafting someone for a career's worth of production however, then clearly you take the guy who is durable and able to continue playing well after his prime.

 

[Raider Nation]

Hopefully, all the people who have posted so far will spend a lot of time watching NFL Films Super Bowl highlights next week on ESPN Classic. If you want a receiver for just one game and that game is the Super Bowl, you're going to have a very hard time picking someone other than Lynn Swann. If you're drafting someone for a career's worth of production however, then clearly you take the guy who is durable and able to continue playing well after his prime.

Yeah, the question was ambiguous before I edited it.I simply wanted to compare Seattle's best-ever WR with Pitt's best-ever WR.

I should have thought about Stallworth or Ward as the Steeler representative.

Or Louis Lipps.

 

[trader jake]

largent in a boatrace

 

[Irish]

One of the top five WRs ever to play the game, or a fringe HOFer who probably shouldn't have made it?

Doesn't seem like a tough call.

I agree. I have written here in the past that Swann is one of the HoF'ers who is undeserving of the honor. I then got ripped by hoards of Steeler fans who kept telling me how he came up big in big games. But his regular season numbers were pedestrian.I don't think Namath is a Hall of Famer, either. The guy has 47 more picks than TD passes, for crying out loud. Let's face it, he got in solely because he legitimized the AFL after his bold prediction.

And he was on The Brady Bunch.

But that's another discussion for another day....

Well of course Largent had the better stats because he played on a team that was for the most part behind in games and forced to throw a lot. You put Swann on the 49ers with Montana and Young or the Martz led Ram teams and he would set all kinds of records. Largent was one of my favorite players in the league, but he is not in Swann's class.

 

[Limp Ditka]

One of the top five WRs ever to play the game, or a fringe HOFer who probably shouldn't have made it?

Doesn't seem like a tough call.

I agree. I have written here in the past that Swann is one of the HoF'ers who is undeserving of the honor. I then got ripped by hoards of Steeler fans who kept telling me how he came up big in big games. But his regular season numbers were pedestrian.I don't think Namath is a Hall of Famer, either. The guy has 47 more picks than TD passes, for crying out loud. Let's face it, he got in solely because he legitimized the AFL after his bold prediction.

And he was on The Brady Bunch.

But that's another discussion for another day....

Well of course Largent had the better stats because he played on a team that was for the most part behind in games and forced to throw a lot. You put Swann on the 49ers with Montana and Young or the Martz led Ram teams and he would set all kinds of records. Largent was one of my favorite players in the league, but he is not in Swann's class.

?Seahawks were 103 and 109 during Largent's career.

 

[pghrob]

One of the top five WRs ever to play the game, or a fringe HOFer who probably shouldn't have made it?

Doesn't seem like a tough call.

I agree. I have written here in the past that Swann is one of the HoF'ers who is undeserving of the honor. I then got ripped by hoards of Steeler fans who kept telling me how he came up big in big games. But his regular season numbers were pedestrian.I don't think Namath is a Hall of Famer, either. The guy has 47 more picks than TD passes, for crying out loud. Let's face it, he got in solely because he legitimized the AFL after his bold prediction.

And he was on The Brady Bunch.

But that's another discussion for another day....

Well of course Largent had the better stats because he played on a team that was for the most part behind in games and forced to throw a lot. You put Swann on the 49ers with Montana and Young or the Martz led Ram teams and he would set all kinds of records. Largent was one of my favorite players in the league, but he is not in Swann's class.

I was thinking in similar fashion. Their careers were obviously influenced by the schemes their offenses employed, as well as the talent that surrounded them.Statistically, Largent was much better than Swann. But it is not like he was more valuable to his team than Swann.

I don't think you can do a fair and valid comparison. Too many other variables exist. Both were great. They were used as they were needed by their teams and as such had vastly different levels of production.

 

[⚡DEADHEAD⚡]

We'll assume you are voting under the assumption that they are both in their prime, and both available in free agency. They will not be going to an expansion team.

They mentioned these guys on ESPN radio the other day. Wanted to see which WR you fine folks would rather have. If you're too young to remember them, please sit it out.



Personally, I'll take Largent.

- Caught passes in 177 straight games.

- Missed only 4 games his first 13 years!

- Selected to seven Pro Bowls.

- Eight 1,000 yard seasons.

Edited to illustrate what my conditions are.

Funny how you say pick a player in his prime and then you cite at least two statistics that occur over the course of most of a career.

 

[Tau837]

Statistically, Largent was much better than Swann.  But it is not like he was more valuable to his team than Swann.

I guess we must have a different definition of value.How many HOFers played on Swann's Steelers teams? Heck, he played with another HOF receiver.How many HOFers were on Largent's Seahawks teams? Answer: None.Take Swann off the Steelers and you are left with a great defense, Bradshaw, Stallworth, Harris, etc. Take Largent off the Seahawks and you're left with... Dave Krieg/Jim Zorn.I am beginning to think that you could post any poll in the Shark Pool and get a number of votes for both sides, no matter how lopsided the poll.

 

[Tau837]

Hopefully, all the people who have posted so far will spend a lot of time watching NFL Films Super Bowl highlights next week on ESPN Classic. If you want a receiver for just one game and that game is the Super Bowl, you're going to have a very hard time picking someone other than Lynn Swann. If you're drafting someone for a career's worth of production however, then clearly you take the guy who is durable and able to continue playing well after his prime.

I guess your point is that because Swann played really well in his 3 Super Bowl appearances (16/365/3), if you had to choose him to play in another big game in his prime he is the hands down winner over Largent.Thoughts on this:

1. Were other playoff games not big games? Swann had 43/830/8 in 13 career postseason games. Largent had 23/434/4 in 7 career playoff games. That looks pretty comparable to me. But he never had the opportunity to play in the Super Bowl, so I guess he doesn't compare...?

2. Deion Branch has 21/276/1 in his 2 SB appearances. Would you choose him over Largent too for a Super Bowl?

Oh, and in response to this:

If you want a receiver for just one game and that game is the Super Bowl, you're going to have a very hard time picking someone other than Lynn Swann.

Obviously, you mean besides Jerry Rice, right?

 

[Godsbrother]

The problem is that many people that are voting in these polls never watched these guys play and go solely by stats. There are so many other factors that go into it.I saw nearly every game that Lynn Swann played and saw a fair amount of games that Largent played. They were both great WRs. If I had to choose 1 for a big game I would take Swann, because he faster and could make the most acrobatic catches you could ever want to see. He was also a pretty good return man in his day and a darn good blocker as well.If I were going to build a team from scratch I would choose Largent because he was also a great WR and more durable than Swann.That's my

 

[Raider Nation]

We'll assume you are voting under the assumption that they are both in their prime, and both available in free agency. They will not be going to an expansion team.

They mentioned these guys on ESPN radio the other day. Wanted to see which WR you fine folks would rather have. If you're too young to remember them, please sit it out.



Personally, I'll take Largent.

- Caught passes in 177 straight games.

- Missed only 4 games his first 13 years!

- Selected to seven Pro Bowls.

- Eight 1,000 yard seasons.

Edited to illustrate what my conditions are.

Funny how you say pick a player in his prime and then you cite at least two statistics that occur over the course of most of a career.

For the record, that's actually not the order in which I listed things. My original post did not have the factors of consideration. That was edited in, as a response to MarshallRob's question in post #2. It was difficult to decide how I wanted them compared.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I thought this was a political question.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

Even as a Steelers homer the obvious answer is Largent.

 

[Sidewinder16]

If I had to choose 1 for a big game I would take Swann, because he faster and could make the most acrobatic catches you could ever want to see.

Not to take anything away from Swann, but Largent was pretty fast and made a number of spectacular catches, as well. Unfortunately, he never got the chance to make any in a Super Bowl. I don't think he should be blamed for that.Swann was a spectacular athlete and receiver. So was Largent. The gap between the two (if any) on "acrobatic catch" ability is far smaller than people are making it out to be.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Steve Largent

Lynn Swann

Not sure how the liberals on the board will vote on this one.

 

[Franknbeans]

Swanny, I'll take Super Bowls over stats any day

 

[My Hope Street Alias]

Can't go wrong with either pick. They're both Republicans.

 

[Mr. Vegas]

LARGENT [ 45 ] [70.31%] SWANN [ 19 ] [29.69%] I voted Largent,but thought that the voting would be switched.More Swann fans out there.

 

[WhoDat]

I watched those guys play and without hesitation I take Largent and this is coming from someone that idolized Swann. Largent was every bit the athlete that Swann was and it is clear that some of the references being made to this aspect of their game are coming from folks that have seen all of Swann's NFL Film snippets but probably never saw Largent play. Lastly, many modern WR records progressed from Joiner to Largent to Monk/Lofton/Brown/Rice. Swann was never even in the equation.

 

[MarshallRob]

Hopefully, all the people who have posted so far will spend a lot of time watching NFL Films Super Bowl highlights next week on ESPN Classic.  If you want a receiver for just one game and that game is the Super Bowl, you're going to have a very hard time picking someone other than Lynn Swann.  If you're drafting someone for a career's worth of production however, then clearly you take the guy who is durable and able to continue playing well after his prime.

I guess your point is that because Swann played really well in his 3 Super Bowl appearances (16/365/3), if you had to choose him to play in another big game in his prime he is the hands down winner over Largent.Thoughts on this:

1. Were other playoff games not big games? Swann had 43/830/8 in 13 career postseason games. Largent had 23/434/4 in 7 career playoff games. That looks pretty comparable to me. But he never had the opportunity to play in the Super Bowl, so I guess he doesn't compare...?

2. Deion Branch has 21/276/1 in his 2 SB appearances. Would you choose him over Largent too for a Super Bowl?

Oh, and in response to this:

If you want a receiver for just one game and that game is the Super Bowl, you're going to have a very hard time picking someone other than Lynn Swann.

Obviously, you mean besides Jerry Rice, right?

But of course. It's not just the number of Super Bowl catches, it's the quality of Swann's catches. The sidelines grab and the juggling catch down the middle in Super Bowl X. The sliding TD catch that broke open Super Bowl XIII. The guy was unbelievable when it counted. Not that Largent wasn't great. I'm sure he would have done well had he gotten a chance to play in a Super Bowl.

To me it's a tougher call than a lot of people seem to think it is. I don't think you can just summarily declare Largent was better because his stats are superior. That's looking backward. If we're talking about pure ability the answer's not so clearcut. Swann was an acrobat. I haven't seen too many receivers over the years flash that same kind of skill set.

For one game would you rather have Bo Jackson or Jerome Bettis in their prime?

 

[stevec]

I was also dreading that this might be a political question.As for a WR - Largent, it's not close. Swann was not the best WR on his own team. Largent was the best WR in the NFL.As a politician, I'm leery of splashy big name candidates running for office with no positions or track record - I start to wonder how we know what they are really about. PA is more diverse than OK, so Largent probably fits the populace better - it's harder for one guy to fit all of PA.Edit to respond to degree of difficulty:Holding on to the football when you're getting concussed and knocked out of the game is pretty hard. To then tackle the guy who hit you later in the season in the return match, and knock him out as a WR laying the lumber on an INT return is pretty hard as well.

 

[Raider Nation]

As for a WR - Largent, it's not close. Swann was not the best WR on his own team.

He got into the Hall before Stallworth did, FWIW, so it's not an open & shut case.

 

[redman]

One of the things that's always amazed me about Swann's HoF selection is how, in contrast, Gary Clark seems to get so little consideration. He too played big in big games (they both played in 13 playoff games), and his career stats downright bury Swann's.

Here are their career regular season stats, followed by their playoff stats:

Swann:

+--------------------------+-------------------------+                 |          Rushing         |        Receiving        |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| Year  TM |   G |   Att  Yards    Y/A   TD |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| 1974 pit |  11 |     1     14   14.0    0 |    11    208  18.9    2 || 1975 pit |  14 |     3     13    4.3    0 |    49    781  15.9   11 || 1976 pit |  12 |     1      2    2.0    0 |    28    516  18.4    3 || 1977 pit |  14 |     2      6    3.0    0 |    50    789  15.8    7 || 1978 pit |  16 |     1      7    7.0    0 |    61    880  14.4   11 || 1979 pit |  13 |     1      9    9.0    1 |    41    808  19.7    5 || 1980 pit |  13 |     1     -4   -4.0    0 |    44    710  16.1    7 || 1981 pit |  13 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    34    505  14.9    5 || 1982 pit |   9 |     1     25   25.0    0 |    18    265  14.7    0 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+|  TOTAL   | 115 |    11     72    6.5    1 |   336   5462  16.3   51 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

Clark

+--------------------------+-------------------------+                 |          Rushing         |        Receiving        |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| Year  TM |   G |   Att  Yards    Y/A   TD |   Rec  Yards   Y/R   TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| 1985 was |  16 |     2     10    5.0    0 |    72    926  12.9    5 || 1986 was |  15 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    74   1265  17.1    7 || 1987 was |  12 |     1      0    0.0    0 |    56   1066  19.0    7 || 1988 was |  16 |     2      6    3.0    0 |    59    892  15.1    7 || 1989 was |  15 |     2     19    9.5    0 |    79   1229  15.6    9 || 1990 was |  16 |     1      1    1.0    0 |    75   1112  14.8    8 || 1991 was |  16 |     1      0    0.0    0 |    70   1340  19.1   10 || 1992 was |  16 |     2     18    9.0    0 |    64    912  14.2    5 || 1993 pho |  14 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    63    818  13.0    4 || 1994 ari |  15 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    50    771  15.4    1 || 1995 mia |  16 |     0      0    0.0    0 |    37    525  14.2    2 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+|  TOTAL   | 167 |    11     54    4.9    0 |   699  10856  15.5   65 |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

Swann Playoff Games:

Year  Opp   Result  |  RSH    YD  TD  |  REC    YD  TD---------------------+-----------------+----------------- 1975  bal  W,28-10  |    0     0   0  |    2    15   0 1975  oak  W,16-10  |    0     0   0  |    2    45   0*1975  dal  W,21-17  |    0     0   0  |    4   161   1 1976  bal  W,40-14  |    0     0   0  |    5    77   2 1976  oak  L,7-24   |    0     0   0  |    3    58   0 1977  den  L,21-34  |    0     0   0  |    1     6   0 1978  den  W,33-10  |    0     0   0  |    2    52   1 1978  hou  W,34-5   |    0     0   0  |    4    98   1*1978  dal  W,35-31  |    0     0   0  |    7   124   1 1979  mia  W,34-14  |    0     0   0  |    3    37   1 1979  hou  W,27-13  |    0     0   0  |    4    64   0*1979  ram  W,31-19  |    0     0   0  |    5    79   1 1982  sdg  L,28-31  |    0     0   0  |    1    14   0---------------------+-----------------+-----------------TOTAL                |    0     0   0  |   43   830   8

Clark Playoff Games:

Year  Opp   Result  |  RSH    YD  TD  |  REC    YD  TD---------------------+-----------------+----------------- 1986  ram  W,19-7   |    0     0   0  |    1     8   0 1986  chi  W,27-13  |    0     0   0  |    5    37   0 1987  chi  W,21-17  |    1    -6   0  |    4    56   0 1987  min  W,17-10  |    1     5   0  |    3    57   1*1987  den  W,42-10  |    1    25   0  |    3    55   1 1990  phi  W,20-6   |    0     0   0  |    4    63   1 1990  sfo  L,10-28  |    0     0   0  |    6    63   0 1991  atl  W,24-7   |    0     0   0  |    6    64   0 1991  det  W,41-10  |    0     0   0  |    4    77   1*1991  buf  W,37-24  |    0     0   0  |    7   114   1 1992  min  W,24-7   |    0     0   0  |    6    91   1 1992  sfo  L,13-20  |    0     0   0  |    7   100   0 1995  buf  L,22-37  |    0     0   0  |    2    41   0---------------------+-----------------+-----------------TOTAL                |    3    24   0  |   58   826   6

To me, as wonderful of a player as Swann was, his HoF placement comes down to one play, which was that acrobatic Super Bowl catch he made vs. the Cowboys. That's become an inconic NFL image. Without that, he's just another John Taylor.

 

[stevec]

As for a WR - Largent, it's not close. Swann was not the best WR on his own team.

He got into the Hall before Stallworth did, FWIW, so it's not an open & shut case.

I guess it's somewhat relevant. Swann got in one year sooner, but retired much sooner, and it took him more years. They were on the ballot together, though.I do think that since we hear about Swann being a terrible HoF choice and not much about Stallworth, that tells you what most of the posters here think about the 2 players relative merits.

 

[Sidewinder16]

One of the things that's always amazed me about Swann's HoF selection is how, in contrast, Gary Clark seems to get so little consideration. He too played big in big games (they both played in 13 playoff games), and his career stats downright bury Swann's.

Clark was a compiler.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

To me it's a tougher call than a lot of people seem to think it is. I don't think you can just summarily declare Largent was better because his stats are superior.

It's a very easy call and it has nothing to do with stats.I watched both guys play quite a bit. Swann was awesome. But Largent ran better patterns, had better hands, was quicker out of his cuts, was a tougher runner after the catch, and was more versatile (short, long, over the middle, along the sideline, single cuts, double cuts, etc.).

On the all-time WR list, IMO it's 1. Rice and 2. Largent in terms of skill. (Leaving aside the new guys like Moss and Owens for now.) Swann is not top ten.

Nothing to do with stats.

 

[Tau837]

I don't think you can just summarily declare Largent was better because his stats are superior.

I agree. I saw both of them play, and to me it was obvious that Largent was a better receiver and was more valuable to his team. So from my own observation, which happens to be supported by statistics, Largent was better. And it wasn't particularly close.It's possible that if the Steelers didn't have a strong running game and defense and another HOF WR that Swann would have been just as valuable to his team. But they did have all that, and IMO it isn't reasonable to compare players by speculating on what they might have done in different situations.

If we're talking about pure ability the answer's not so clearcut. Swann was an acrobat. I haven't seen too many receivers over the years flash that same kind of skill set.

It is probably fair to say that Swann was a better athlete, although I agree with WhoDat that the gap is smaller than most seem to believe. But better athlete obviously does not equal better receiver. When I choose a receiver for one "big game", I'm going to choose a great receiver who is a good athlete over a great athlete who is a good receiver.

For one game would you rather have Bo Jackson or Jerome Bettis in their prime?

This is a bit harder to say since we can only speculate how good Bo could have been. Based on the small sample set Bo compiled, I'd take Bettis in his prime. I'm sure many will disagree with me based on the Bettis talk around here, but Bettis was better than people realize in his prime. Bo had better highlights for sure, but IMO Bettis was a better RB in his prime. That said, I had to think about it.

 

[Tau837]

To me it's a tougher call than a lot of people seem to think it is.  I don't think you can just summarily declare Largent was better because his stats are superior.

It's a very easy call and it has nothing to do with stats.I watched both guys play quite a bit. Swann was awesome. But Largent ran better patterns, had better hands, was quicker out of his cuts, was a tougher runner after the catch, and was more versatile (short, long, over the middle, along the sideline, single cuts, double cuts, etc.).

On the all-time WR list, IMO it's 1. Rice and 2. Largent in terms of skill. (Leaving aside the new guys like Moss and Owens for now.) Swann is not top ten.

Nothing to do with stats.

 

[MarshallRob]

To me it's a tougher call than a lot of people seem to think it is.  I don't think you can just summarily declare Largent was better because his stats are superior.

It's a very easy call and it has nothing to do with stats.I watched both guys play quite a bit. Swann was awesome. But Largent ran better patterns, had better hands, was quicker out of his cuts, was a tougher runner after the catch, and was more versatile (short, long, over the middle, along the sideline, single cuts, double cuts, etc.).

On the all-time WR list, IMO it's 1. Rice and 2. Largent in terms of skill. (Leaving aside the new guys like Moss and Owens for now.) Swann is not top ten.

Nothing to do with stats.

It is a good posting. For some reason, many people think of Largent as a possession receiver. He wasn't really though he had hands as good as any receiver I've ever seen. He was a complete player with gamebreaking ability. Unfortunately for Largent, Rice came along and obliterated all the records before Largent's accomplishments had time to settle and register in people's minds. I thought both guys were great (as football players). Because I saw Swann make incredible catches that actually turned around several championship games, I'd lean to Swann if I had to pick one for a single game. Anything more, I'd take Largent. He'd pop right back up from kill shots while Swann was injury-prone and very susceptible to concussions. It wasn't his fault; it's just how he was built.

 

[Jason Wood]

WOW...there are a LOT of Steelers fans in the Shark Pool.

 

[CrossEyed]

Stallworth.

 

[WhoDat]

WOW...there are a LOT of Steelers fans in the Shark Pool.

I think it has more to do with the differences in ages between the posters. It has become pretty clear that there is a tier of active contributors that are 35 plus. It has also become clear that there are a large number in their 20's. A younger fan has seen Swann's highlight reel over...and over...and over...and over but probably has little, if any memory of Largent. Those Steelers teams are represented and defined on film by The Immaculate Reception; the shot of Lambert minus teeth that has breath billowing out of his empty grin; Swann's catches against the Cowboys and Stallworth's catch against the Rams. Think about it. When you think old Steelers or see them talked about on TV one of those images come to mind or are used. The Seahawks have gotten little national attention in a season that has seen them capture the NFC crown. Largent played for the Seahawks immediately after they entered the league in an era LONG before national sports coverage. Even during his playing days Largent was not fawned upon by the media. He did not get any national attention until he began to close in on some of Joiner's records, which as Marshall Rob pointed Largent only kept warm for Rice. Thus, the results are not all that shocking. I place Largent in another tier as a football player. That was one of the toughest SOB's to ever play professionally.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Stallworth.

Better comparison than Swann. But still no Steve Largent.

 

[stevec]

In fairness, I would take Swann over Largent (and Rice) for "Dancing with the Stars."

 

[Jason Wood]

WOW...there are a LOT of Steelers fans in the Shark Pool.

I think it has more to do with the differences in ages between the posters. It has become pretty clear that there is a tier of active contributors that are 35 plus. It has also become clear that there are a large number in their 20's. A younger fan has seen Swann's highlight reel over...and over...and over...and over but probably has little, if any memory of Largent. Those Steelers teams are represented and defined on film by The Immaculate Reception; the shot of Lambert minus teeth that has breath billowing out of his empty grin; Swann's catches against the Cowboys and Stallworth's catch against the Rams. Think about it. When you think old Steelers or see them talked about on TV one of those images come to mind or are used.

The Seahawks have gotten little national attention in a season that has seen them capture the NFC crown. Largent played for the Seahawks immediately after they entered the league in an era LONG before national sports coverage. Even during his playing days Largent was not fawned upon by the media. He did not get any national attention until he began to close in on some of Joiner's records, which as Marshall Rob pointed Largent only kept warm for Rice. Thus, the results are not all that shocking.

I place Largent in another tier as a football player. That was one of the toughest SOB's to ever play professionally.

I hear you WhoDat...but that still baffles me. Honestly, people usually fall back to stats when they haven't seen a player play and Largent's statistical achievements DESTROY Swann's, it's not even close. IMHO, Steve Largent is the 3rd best receiver in NFL history.

Swann wouldn't be in my top 20.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

WOW...there are a LOT of Steelers fans in the Shark Pool.

I think it has more to do with the differences in ages between the posters. It has become pretty clear that there is a tier of active contributors that are 35 plus. It has also become clear that there are a large number in their 20's. A younger fan has seen Swann's highlight reel over...and over...and over...and over but probably has little, if any memory of Largent. Those Steelers teams are represented and defined on film by The Immaculate Reception; the shot of Lambert minus teeth that has breath billowing out of his empty grin; Swann's catches against the Cowboys and Stallworth's catch against the Rams. Think about it. When you think old Steelers or see them talked about on TV one of those images come to mind or are used.

The Seahawks have gotten little national attention in a season that has seen them capture the NFC crown. Largent played for the Seahawks immediately after they entered the league in an era LONG before national sports coverage. Even during his playing days Largent was not fawned upon by the media. He did not get any national attention until he began to close in on some of Joiner's records, which as Marshall Rob pointed Largent only kept warm for Rice. Thus, the results are not all that shocking.

I place Largent in another tier as a football player. That was one of the toughest SOB's to ever play professionally.

I hear you WhoDat...but that still baffles me. Honestly, people usually fall back to stats when they haven't seen a player play and Largent's statistical achievements DESTROY Swann's, it's not even close. IMHO, Steve Largent is the 3rd best receiver in NFL history.

Swann wouldn't be in my top 20.

But who has a better policy on corporate relocation incentive programs?

 

[Irish]

Statistically, Largent was much better than Swann. But it is not like he was more valuable to his team than Swann.

I guess we must have a different definition of value.How many HOFers played on Swann's Steelers teams? Heck, he played with another HOF receiver.

How many HOFers were on Largent's Seahawks teams? Answer: None.

Take Swann off the Steelers and you are left with a great defense, Bradshaw, Stallworth, Harris, etc. Take Largent off the Seahawks and you're left with... Dave Krieg/Jim Zorn.

I am beginning to think that you could post any poll in the Shark Pool and get a number of votes for both sides, no matter how lopsided the poll.

One could also argue that Largent put up his impressive stats because of the so called lack of talent around him.

 

[Irish]

I watched those guys play and without hesitation I take Largent and this is coming from someone that idolized Swann. Largent was every bit the athlete that Swann was and it is clear that some of the references being made to this aspect of their game are coming from folks that have seen all of Swann's NFL Film snippets but probably never saw Largent play. Lastly, many modern WR records progressed from Joiner to Largent to Monk/Lofton/Brown/Rice. Swann was never even in the equation.

Largent was not every bit the athlete that Swann was, that was what is so impressive about Largent's career.

 

[Tau837]

Statistically, Largent was much better than Swann.  But it is not like he was more valuable to his team than Swann.

I guess we must have a different definition of value.How many HOFers played on Swann's Steelers teams? Heck, he played with another HOF receiver.

How many HOFers were on Largent's Seahawks teams? Answer: None.

Take Swann off the Steelers and you are left with a great defense, Bradshaw, Stallworth, Harris, etc. Take Largent off the Seahawks and you're left with... Dave Krieg/Jim Zorn.

I am beginning to think that you could post any poll in the Shark Pool and get a number of votes for both sides, no matter how lopsided the poll.

One could also argue that Largent put up his impressive stats because of the so called lack of talent around him.

And one could counter that argument by pointing out that he was the focus of every opposing defense due to that lack of surrounding talent.

 

[Godsbrother]

Statistically, Largent was much better than Swann.  But it is not like he was more valuable to his team than Swann.

I guess we must have a different definition of value.How many HOFers played on Swann's Steelers teams? Heck, he played with another HOF receiver.

How many HOFers were on Largent's Seahawks teams? Answer: None.

Take Swann off the Steelers and you are left with a great defense, Bradshaw, Stallworth, Harris, etc. Take Largent off the Seahawks and you're left with... Dave Krieg/Jim Zorn.

I am beginning to think that you could post any poll in the Shark Pool and get a number of votes for both sides, no matter how lopsided the poll.

One could also argue that Largent put up his impressive stats because of the so called lack of talent around him.

And one could counter that argument by pointing out that he was the focus of every opposing defense due to that lack of surrounding talent.

And one could come right back and say the 70s Steelers were just a wee bit better of a team than the expansion Seahawks who were playing from behind a lot until the mid-80s.Swann had to share the ball with MUCH better receivers than Largent did and also played for a run oriented team that was usually ahead in the second half.

Steve Largent was one of the best receivers to ever play in the NFL and if I was choosing to a WR to build my team around I would take him over Swann any day.

But for one game with both in their primes, I would take Swann. There was nothing that Largent could do that Swann couldn't and Swann has the rings.

 

[Tau837]

Statistically, Largent was much better than Swann.  But it is not like he was more valuable to his team than Swann.

I guess we must have a different definition of value.How many HOFers played on Swann's Steelers teams? Heck, he played with another HOF receiver.

How many HOFers were on Largent's Seahawks teams? Answer: None.

Take Swann off the Steelers and you are left with a great defense, Bradshaw, Stallworth, Harris, etc. Take Largent off the Seahawks and you're left with... Dave Krieg/Jim Zorn.

I am beginning to think that you could post any poll in the Shark Pool and get a number of votes for both sides, no matter how lopsided the poll.

One could also argue that Largent put up his impressive stats because of the so called lack of talent around him.

And one could counter that argument by pointing out that he was the focus of every opposing defense due to that lack of surrounding talent.

And one could come right back and say the 70s Steelers were just a wee bit better of a team than the expansion Seahawks who were playing from behind a lot until the mid-80s.Swann had to share the ball with MUCH better receivers than Largent did and also played for a run oriented team that was usually ahead in the second half.

Steve Largent was one of the best receivers to ever play in the NFL and if I was choosing to a WR to build my team around I would take him over Swann any day.

But for one game with both in their primes, I would take Swann. There was nothing that Largent could do that Swann couldn't and Swann has the rings.

Fine, we can agree to disagree. You say there was nothing Largent could do that Swann couldn't... I think Maurile compared them best:

It's a very easy call and it has nothing to do with stats.

I watched both guys play quite a bit. Swann was awesome. But Largent ran better patterns, had better hands, was quicker out of his cuts, was a tougher runner after the catch, and was more versatile (short, long, over the middle, along the sideline, single cuts, double cuts, etc.).

On the all-time WR list, IMO it's 1. Rice and 2. Largent in terms of skill. (Leaving aside the new guys like Moss and Owens for now.) Swann is not top ten.

Nothing to do with stats.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

One of the top five WRs ever to play the game, or a fringe HOFer who probably shouldn't have made it?

Doesn't seem like a tough call.

I agree. I have written here in the past that Swann is one of the HoF'ers who is undeserving of the honor. I then got ripped by hoards of Steeler fans who kept telling me how he came up big in big games. But his regular season numbers were pedestrian.I don't think Namath is a Hall of Famer, either. The guy has 47 more picks than TD passes, for crying out loud. Let's face it, he got in solely because he legitimized the AFL after his bold prediction.

And he was on The Brady Bunch.

But that's another discussion for another day....

You got ripped on? So did I! A few good games does not make one great.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

WOW...there are a LOT of Steelers fans in the Shark Pool.

I think it has more to do with the differences in ages between the posters. It has become pretty clear that there is a tier of active contributors that are 35 plus. It has also become clear that there are a large number in their 20's. A younger fan has seen Swann's highlight reel over...and over...and over...and over but probably has little, if any memory of Largent. Those Steelers teams are represented and defined on film by The Immaculate Reception; the shot of Lambert minus teeth that has breath billowing out of his empty grin; Swann's catches against the Cowboys and Stallworth's catch against the Rams. Think about it. When you think old Steelers or see them talked about on TV one of those images come to mind or are used.

The Seahawks have gotten little national attention in a season that has seen them capture the NFC crown. Largent played for the Seahawks immediately after they entered the league in an era LONG before national sports coverage. Even during his playing days Largent was not fawned upon by the media. He did not get any national attention until he began to close in on some of Joiner's records, which as Marshall Rob pointed Largent only kept warm for Rice. Thus, the results are not all that shocking.

I place Largent in another tier as a football player. That was one of the toughest SOB's to ever play professionally.

I hear you WhoDat...but that still baffles me. Honestly, people usually fall back to stats when they haven't seen a player play and Largent's statistical achievements DESTROY Swann's, it's not even close. IMHO, Steve Largent is the 3rd best receiver in NFL history.

Swann wouldn't be in my top 20.

But who has a better policy on corporate relocation incentive programs?

Top 20? You are giving him more credit then I would.