Steve Largent or Lynn Swann? (1 Viewer)

[Jules Winnfield]

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

Then Charles Haley is the greatest player who ever lived?

 

[redman]

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 in spite of of the so called lack of talent around him.

Corrected. Seriously, did your version make any sense? Isn't the opposite argument ("surrounded by lots of talent") usually used as an epithet against the accomplishments of certain prominent players like Swann?

 

[redman]

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

I'm just amazed that Swann won all of those Super Bowls on his own. Wow, and here I thought that football was a team sport.

 

[Gravity]

Another who thinks its not even close.I've seen Largent play. He could do EVERYTHING at the position. He was one of the top 5 WR's ever. And for the record - the guy was a great athlete.

 

[Nihilist Pig]

The fact that Largent is winning in a landslide is insane.

Largent is absolutely more deserving of his place in the HOF, based solely on his statistical accomplishments. He was a great, reliable WR for ages. But ultimately, he was a possession receiver with longevity.

Lynn Swann was a gamebreaker. Not only that, but he was one of the all time great gamebreakers. He was the sort of presence that demanded you roll the safety his way and respect the deep ball on every play. And with his leaping, explosive athleticism, it wouldn't matter who your QB was...the big play still had to be respected, every snap.

You take Steve Largent in his prime, and you've got 10 more years of top-notch possession receiving ahead of you and your franchise. Yippee.

You take Lynn Swann in his prime, you have an automatic vertical passing game, an automatic situation where no team can stack the box on your running game, and most importantly, any decent receiver you stick across the field from him becomes Steve Largent. The guy opposite Swann draws single coverage against the lesser CB every time out, all game long.

Pick Largent, and you've got a franchise $ WR and a hole on the other side. Pick Swann, and you've got a franchise $ WR, a Largent clone for free, and an automatic boost to the running game.

You're all thinking like fantasy footballers. Largent isn't anywhere near the value to a real football team a guy like Swann is. Not even close.

 

[Raider Nation]

The fact that Largent is winning in a landslide is insane.

Largent was a great, reliable WR for ages. But ultimately, he was a possession receiver with longevity.

Lynn Swann was a gamebreaker. Not only that, but he was one of the all time great gamebreakers.

Largent's career Yards Per Catch: 16.0

Swann's career Yards Per Catch: 16.3

Tom Waddle was a possession receiver.

So are Brian Finneran, Wayne Chrebet and yes, even Keyshawn Johnson.

To pigeonhole Largent as a "possession receiver" is inaccurate and insulting.

 

[Raider Nation]

Simply the toughest SOB I've seen play football. Ran amazing routes and caught anything near him. That and he's a way better tackler than Swann.

Mike Harden agrees with you...

 

[Chaz McNulty]

...makes a mental note to disregard any future football insight offered by those that chose Swann in this poll.This is a rediculous poll and I feel embarrased for those that chose Swann. I hope it's simply a case of homerism and not anyone attempting to use analytical thinking.

 

[Tau837]

The fact that Largent is winning in a landslide is insane.Largent is absolutely more deserving of his place in the HOF, based solely on his statistical accomplishments. He was a great, reliable WR for ages. But ultimately, he was a possession receiver with longevity....You take Steve Largent in his prime, and you've got 10 more years of top-notch possession receiving ahead of you and your franchise. Yippee....Pick Largent, and you've got a franchise $ WR and a hole on the other side. Pick Swann, and you've got a franchise $ WR, a Largent clone for free, and an automatic boost to the running game.You're all thinking like fantasy footballers. Largent isn't anywhere near the value to a real football team a guy like Swann is. Not even close.

:11: This is one of the most ignorant posts I've read here in a long time.

 

[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 in spite of of the so called lack of talent around him.

Corrected. Seriously, did your version make any sense? Isn't the opposite argument ("surrounded by lots of talent") usually used as an epithet against the accomplishments of certain prominent players like Swann?

Logically you could say that a great player on a bad team has no one to compete with for receptions.

 

[WhoDat]

You're all thinking like fantasy footballers. Largent isn't anywhere near the value to a real football team a guy like Swann is. Not even close.

No, actually the group is thinking in terms of real football versus fantasy. 9 times out of 10 that is not the case and, usually, the debate or poll reflects that fact. On this topic, though, folks have got it right. Calling Largent a simple possession receiver is laughable.

 

[The Jerk]

Lynn Swann was my absolute favorite Steeler player during my childhood. I had the #88 jersey and the whole bit. However, Steve Largent is one of the greatest WRs ever. Based on the criteria listed in the first post, I would choose Largent.However, if I'm being asked who I want for one game, especially if it's the Super Bowl, then the decision becomes much more difficult. Swann, like the entire 1970s Steeler team, had a knack for being at his best in the big game. People can debate whether Bradshaw made Swann and Stallworth look good in big games or it was the other way around. In reality, it was probably a little of both. All I know is Swann is a Super Bowl MVP for a reason. There's only been four WRs as MVP: Deion Branch, Jerry Rice, and Fred Biletnikoff are the others.As to why Swann is in the Hall of Fame, clearly it's not about the numbers. But it's more than just one catch in SB X, or even all of his big game catches. I think Swann changed the expectations of what kind of athlete played WR, and what was possible at the position. His body control and the grace with which he played the game had never been seen before. Now, every team has a WR who can make acrobatic, one-hand, toe-dragging highlight reel catches, but it wasn't that way in 1974. He changed the position. Few players do that in their careers, especially one as short as Swann's.I don't hear today's receivers mention him much anymore -- they're too young -- but for a long time, when receivers were asked who they patterned themself after, they didn't answer based on who was #1 in catches or #1 in yards. More often than any other name, they said, "I wanted to be like Lynn Swann."

 

[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 in spite of of the so called lack of talent around him.

Corrected. Seriously, did your version make any sense? Isn't the opposite argument ("surrounded by lots of talent") usually used as an epithet against the accomplishments of certain prominent players like Swann?

Logically you could say that a great player on a bad team has no one to compete with for receptions.

Yes, and logically you could say that a good player on a great team has less attention from the defense to deal with, which is why both arguments suck ### and you shouldn't use them.

Numbers crunching stat geeks will never understand the true value of a football player.

 

[Raider Nation]

I don't hear today's receivers mention him much anymore -- they're too young -- but for a long time, when receivers were asked who they patterned themself after, they didn't answer based on who was #1 in catches or #1 in yards. More often than any other name, they said, "I wanted to be like Lynn Swann."

When Terry Glenn was a rookie in N.E., he reminded me of Swann very much.

 

[Franknbeans]

...makes a mental note to disregard any future football insight offered by those that chose Swann in this poll.

This is a rediculous poll and I feel embarrased for those that chose Swann. I hope it's simply a case of homerism and not anyone attempting to use analytical thinking.

He was my favorite player growing up and the sole reason I am a Steelers fan so yeah, I'm a homer and I would take him over Largent. Sorry, but it's true.

 

[stevec]

...makes a mental note to disregard any future football insight offered by those that chose Swann in this poll.

This is a rediculous poll and I feel embarrased for those that chose Swann.  I hope it's simply a case of homerism and not anyone attempting to use analytical thinking.

He was my favorite player growing up and the sole reason I am a Steelers fan so yeah, I'm a homer and I would take him over Largent. Sorry, but it's true.

Being a homer is fine - that's irrationality for a reason.

 

[Jason Wood]

The fact that Largent is winning in a landslide is insane.

Largent was a great, reliable WR for ages. But ultimately, he was a possession receiver with longevity.

Lynn Swann was a gamebreaker. Not only that, but he was one of the all time great gamebreakers.

Largent's career Yards Per Catch: 16.0

Swann's career Yards Per Catch: 16.3

Tom Waddle was a possession receiver.

So are Brian Finneran, Wayne Chrebet and yes, even Keyshawn Johnson.

To pigeonhole Largent as a "possession receiver" is inaccurate and insulting.