Steve Tasker & Brian Mitchell -- Special Teams aces (1 Viewer)

[CalBear]

I'm still waiting for someone to discuss whether they think that Ray Guy or Steve Tasker helped their team win more games. I understand if that isn't the determining factor for the HOF, but it almost sounds like people believe that Guy was more helpful to the Raiders in winning games than Tasker was to the Bills and I just can't see how that is possible. I understand that CalBear and others dismiss the WR totals and I would agree in the sense that it should be considered separately as a HOF criteria. But didn't those 20 some catches, 300 some yards and 3 TDs those two years do more to help the Bills win games than Guy's 9 punts a game? What am I missing?

I don't think either of them belong in the HOF. Both of them belong in the "Hall Of People Madden Loves To Blather On About", which is much larger than the HOF.

 

[Pat Patriot]

The 90's Bills teams already have Kelly, Thomas, Lofton, and Levy in the Hall of Fame. Bruce Smith will go in as soon as he's eligible. Andre Reed has a good case, especially if Monk finally gets in. And now we're going to put in Tasker too? How many guys from a team that didn't win a single title are we going to put in the Hall?

throw in Ralph Wilson, Bill Polian, Kent Hull, and Cornelius Bennett too please. TIA.

Ralph Wilson did a lot for the old AFL. IIRC he helped keep alive the Oakland franchise. HE deserves to be in the hall, but, I think much of the current media and players just think of him as a cheap, old man. It's really a shame.Bill Polian should get in the hall as well. He brought a terrible Bills team to 4 straight super bowls, an espansion team to the championship game and has kept Indy near the top for numerous years. And all of this during two different eras: salary cap and no salary cap.

Kent Hull was a great OL. I doubt he get's into the hall though. Too many other OL with a lot more press. And for an OL the stats are hard to compare.

Bennett was a very good LB. In the mold of an LT although he did not play in the media mecca that in NY. THe popular belief is that the Buffalo defense was not very good. It was good but not great; and the reason it was even as good as it was is because of a handful of players like Bennett. He should get in the Hall.

Tasker was one of the best ST players when the media began to focus on ST players. IIRC he was one of the first ST players on the Pro Bowl. Many coaches like to say that ST is as important as offense and defense, and it is. So in that sense, Tasker should get in as he was one of the very best. However, the media and public likely do not see ST players as being important on the same scale as the all time greats. I can see the argument that "If he was so good, how come he didn't start on offense [or defense] for his own team?" It is this mentality coupled with the fact that there are many deserving players still waiting for their ticket to be punched to the Hall that will keep him out.

You and ConstruxBoy ought to get together and have a party.Kent Hull. Very good center. Deserves consideration. Will probably not make it.

Bennett. Among several good to very good defenders on that Bills team. The only HOF quality defensive player was Bruce Smith. Darryl Talley, Nate Odomes, Henry Jones and Shane Conlan were all very good as well. Just not great. Bennett is currently behind Andre Tippett, Derrick Thomas and IMO Carl Banks.

Tasker. He will get some consideration but only because of the novelty of electing a ST player. He does not belong on a list with the other candidates currently under consideration.

And like I said in my post, some people just don't understand what the HOF is supposed to be about. You are one of those people. The HOF shouldn't just be a numbers game where some special formula gets a guy in. The HOF should be about pro football players that had a major impact on the game and how it's played. Steve Tasker is one of those people.

You're wrong. I'm not a numbers guy. I've always been about watching football and recognizing greatness. Steve Tasker was NOT a great football player and contrary to some Buffalo fans in this thread, he did NOT "change" the game of football. Thats just laughable.

 

[Pat Patriot]

I don't really understand going down the path that a special teams player doesn't play a high enough % of plays to warrant being a HOF. Jan Stenerud is in the HOF. I'd be willing to bet that Adam Vinatieri gets there as well.

It doesn't matter how many plays you play. It matters what you do when you get the chance to play.

Well, let's compare him to some borderline players. Who helped his team win more, Tasker or Art Monk? Tasker or Terrell Davis? Tasker or Drew Bledsoe? Tasker or Derrick Thomas? Tasker or Tiki Barber? Tasker or Leroy Butler? etc. I don't expect a single one of those guys to get in with the possible exception of Monk. So what makes Tasker more worthy than those players? Do you think Tasker contributed more to winning than they did?Another perspective. Do you think the best long snapper of all time should be in the HOF? The best third down RB? The best nickel back?

More realistically, do you think the best fullback of every era should be in? Do you expect a fullback from this era to get in? Who contributes more to winning, Lorenzo Neal or Steve Tasker?

Etc.

Like Tasker or Rayfield Wright?

You think Tasker was a better football player than Rayfield Wright?

Convince me that he's better. Or was that smilie supposed to show that you don't have a clue how to do that?

I think I could easily convince someone who knows something about football. You I'm not so sure.Larry Rayfield Wright. . .Cowboys’ seventh round pick, 1967 NFL Draft. . .Earned permanent starting right tackle position, 1970. . .Known as “Big Cat,” earned first- or second-team All-NFL honors six consecutive times (1971-1976). . .Selected to play in Pro Bowl following each of those seasons. . .Started in six NFC championship games and played in five Super Bowls. . .Named to NFL’s All-Decade Team of the 1970s. . .Born August 23, 1945, in Griffin, Georgia.

So an all NFL tackle for 6 straight years is not as good as a gunner on punt teams and a good returner that couldnt take it the distance because he lacked top end speed?

I'm always amused by people who can't answer the question without insulting the asker. Shows a lot about them. So I'll ask again: Tasker was in 7 Pro Bowls, Wright was in 6. Wright was in 6 Championship games and 5 Super Bowls, Tasker was in 4 Championship games and 4 Super Bowls. So are the Super Bowls the difference to you?

Pro Bowls just got stuck in the middle of a quote. I dont care about Pro Bowls. Rayfield Wright was ALL-PRO 6 straight times. That is the best in the LEAGUE, not the conference. There were probably 48 starting tackles in the NFL when he played and he was consistently top 2 for 6 straight years. I cant explain it to you any plainer.

 

[Pat Patriot]

I don't really understand going down the path that a special teams player doesn't play a high enough % of plays to warrant being a HOF. Jan Stenerud is in the HOF. I'd be willing to bet that Adam Vinatieri gets there as well.

It doesn't matter how many plays you play. It matters what you do when you get the chance to play.

Well, let's compare him to some borderline players. Who helped his team win more, Tasker or Art Monk? Tasker or Terrell Davis? Tasker or Drew Bledsoe? Tasker or Derrick Thomas? Tasker or Tiki Barber? Tasker or Leroy Butler? etc. I don't expect a single one of those guys to get in with the possible exception of Monk. So what makes Tasker more worthy than those players? Do you think Tasker contributed more to winning than they did?Another perspective. Do you think the best long snapper of all time should be in the HOF? The best third down RB? The best nickel back?

More realistically, do you think the best fullback of every era should be in? Do you expect a fullback from this era to get in? Who contributes more to winning, Lorenzo Neal or Steve Tasker?

Etc.

Like Tasker or Rayfield Wright?

You think Tasker was a better football player than Rayfield Wright?

Convince me that he's better. Or was that smilie supposed to show that you don't have a clue how to do that?

I think I could easily convince someone who knows something about football. You I'm not so sure.Larry Rayfield Wright. . .Cowboys’ seventh round pick, 1967 NFL Draft. . .Earned permanent starting right tackle position, 1970. . .Known as “Big Cat,” earned first- or second-team All-NFL honors six consecutive times (1971-1976). . .Selected to play in Pro Bowl following each of those seasons. . .Started in six NFC championship games and played in five Super Bowls. . .Named to NFL’s All-Decade Team of the 1970s. . .Born August 23, 1945, in Griffin, Georgia.

So an all NFL tackle for 6 straight years is not as good as a gunner on punt teams and a good returner that couldnt take it the distance because he lacked top end speed?

I'm always amused by people who can't answer the question without insulting the asker. Shows a lot about them. So I'll ask again: Tasker was in 7 Pro Bowls, Wright was in 6. Wright was in 6 Championship games and 5 Super Bowls, Tasker was in 4 Championship games and 4 Super Bowls. So are the Super Bowls the difference to you?

I generally show respect when debating a topic. I have been in some GREAT debates on this board. Unfortunately, this doesnt happen to be one of them. Your argument for Tasker being a HOF'er is ludicrous and deserves mocking. I cant take you serious when you think that Steve Tasker was a better football player than some of the HOF names you are throwing around (including Rayfield Wright).I dont think that Jerome Bettis should get into the HOF without a ticket but at least there is SOME merit to the debate. I just dont see how any person with a basic understanding of football can believe that Tasker belongs in the Hall of Fame.

 

[Pat Patriot]

His impact is as difficult to determine as an OLineman. He doesn't have stats that can be broken down that well. How many times did teams double or even triple team him on the punt returns? How many times did that now-unblocked Bill make a tackle, like Pike or someone else? How often did he get down there so quickly that the returner had to completely change his run back and get tackled for less yards than he would have had the lane been there that Tasker took away?

Sure, but this effect happens with every HOF caliber offensive/defensive player. What I mean is, for skill position offensive players, they draw defensive attention away from others... HOF offensive linemen cause the team to change their pass rush... HOF defensive players cause offenses to change their blocking assignments, their playcalling, etc. And those changes caused by HOF offensive & defensive players affect many more plays in each game. And on top of that, HOF offensive and defensive players make more quantifiable impact plays on top of that.

Impossible to calculate. So let's ask a different question: How are there any offensive lineman in the HOF? They are in for more plays, as you've shown. But what stats do they have? Sacks Against? How do you judge them?

I completely agree that judging OL and DL (well, at least those who don't ring up a lot of sacks) is more difficult than most other positions. I mean, intuitively, a HOF OL is likely amongst the best in the league at run blocking and/or pass blocking... so he is probably making many key blocks that spring long runs or TD runs... and preventing sacks and thus preventing big losses, turnovers, and injury to one of the most important positions on the team. If we're talking about a center, he typically calls the blocking assignments for the whole line. And these things happen a lot more often than special teams plays. I certainly think a HOF OL has more impact on his team's winning and losing than Steve Tasker did.

OK, I can't convince you on Tasker versus a offensive or defensive player. How about Tasker versus a punter? How can Ray Guy, who only punted, didn't kick, return kicks, cover kicks, play some WR, etc have more of an impact than Tasker?

Well, I'm not arguing that Ray Guy (or any other punter) should make it.

OK, so who is more deserving of the HOF, even if you think neither should be in: Guy or Tasker?

Well, I think the best punter ever is probably more deserving than Tasker. But I'm not sure if Guy is the best punter ever, although it's a popular notion in the media. So I'm not sure.

Why do you think that the best punter ever is better than the best Special Teams "Star" ever? Your own number of plays analysis kills that idea for starters.

Well, first of all, I'm not sure I'd agree that Tasker is the best special teams star ever. I'm not saying he isn't, I'm just not sure.

As to your question, I thought someone put it well earlier in the thread and I'd tend to lean that way... kickers and punters are specialists with a unique skill that is different from the skills used by the other players. The skills used by other special teams players are not so different from those of other players on the field.

There is another way to look at this. A lot of players who start at defensive back, linebacker, receiver, or running back would make excellent special teams players (in the roles other than punter and kicker)... but they are typically deemed too important to put on special teams because of the risk of injury (see Jason Sehorn). The fact that the better players are held off of special teams to play offense and defense implies that the special teamers are not as important.

Not a bad point. I just don't personally think that punting is as unique a skill as kicking. The kickers face a lot more pressure and there is much, much smaller target to hit (between the uprights) than a punter (somewhere 40 yards down field but not into the end zone please). Added to that is the fact that even great punters don't hit that huge target all that much while the best kickers only miss one to three kicks a year. So I understand the kicker love, just not the punter love. I feel it is very likely that Steve Tasker had more of a positive impact over the course of his career on the Bills winning games than Ray Guy did on the Raiders winning games. In fact, I'd love to hear an argument from a Guy fan on how his punts would have led to more Raider victories than Tasker's coverage, returns, occasional blocks and several seasons as the WR3 led to Bills victories. Anyone have a good basis for that?

SEVERAL??

| Rushing | Receiving |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| 1985 hou | 7 | 2 16 8.0 0 | 2 19 9.5 0 |

| 1986 buf | 7 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 0 0 0.0 0 |

| 1986 hou | 2 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 0 0 0.0 0 |

| 1987 buf | 12 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 0 0 0.0 0 |

| 1988 buf | 14 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 0 0 0.0 0 |

| 1989 buf | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 0 0 0.0 0 |

| 1990 buf | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 2 44 22.0 2 |

| 1991 buf | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 2 39 19.5 1 |

| 1992 buf | 15 | 1 9 9.0 0 | 2 24 12.0 0 |

| 1993 buf | 15 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 2 26 13.0 0 |

| 1994 buf | 14 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 0 0 0.0 0 |

| 1995 buf | 13 | 8 74 9.2 0 | 20 255 12.8 3 |

| 1996 buf | 8 | 9 31 3.4 0 | 21 372 17.7 3 |

| 1997 buf | 14 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 0 0 0.0 0 |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| TOTAL | 169 | 20 130 6.5 0 | 51 779 15.3 9 |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

Two seasons isn't several? Is that your best defense of my statement?

Is any other defense necessary? The guy played 14 seasons as a WR and had 0 receptions in 7 of them and less than 3 in an additional 5 seasons.

He was a #3 receiver in several? Really? Several is 2? Thats how you define it?

 

[Pat Patriot]

I'm still waiting for someone to discuss whether they think that Ray Guy or Steve Tasker helped their team win more games. I understand if that isn't the determining factor for the HOF, but it almost sounds like people believe that Guy was more helpful to the Raiders in winning games than Tasker was to the Bills and I just can't see how that is possible. I understand that CalBear and others dismiss the WR totals and I would agree in the sense that it should be considered separately as a HOF criteria. But didn't those 20 some catches, 300 some yards and 3 TDs those two years do more to help the Bills win games than Guy's 9 punts a game? What am I missing?

I dont know why you insist on comparing Tasker to Guy to try and prove your point that Tasker should be in the HOF.1. Ray Guy is not in the HOF2. Ray Guy will likely never be in the HOF because the voters recognize that Guy wasnt a football player. He was a punter. It is very likely that a punter never gets put into the HOF.Tasker was a good football player. Guy was a good punter. Apples and Oranges.

 

[CalBear]

He was a #3 receiver in several? Really? Several is 2? Thats how you define it?

Actually, only one; in 1995 he was the #5 receiver for the Bills in both receptions and yardage.

 

[Pat Patriot]

He was a #3 receiver in several? Really? Several is 2? Thats how you define it?

Actually, only one; in 1995 he was the #5 receiver for the Bills in both receptions and yardage.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I'm still waiting for someone to discuss whether they think that Ray Guy or Steve Tasker helped their team win more games. I understand if that isn't the determining factor for the HOF, but it almost sounds like people believe that Guy was more helpful to the Raiders in winning games than Tasker was to the Bills and I just can't see how that is possible. I understand that CalBear and others dismiss the WR totals and I would agree in the sense that it should be considered separately as a HOF criteria. But didn't those 20 some catches, 300 some yards and 3 TDs those two years do more to help the Bills win games than Guy's 9 punts a game? What am I missing?

One way to look at it is field position. Old post that may be relevant:

I have a book called the Hidden Game of Football, written by Bob Carroll, Pete Palmer, and John Thorn. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in sports statistics. ...here's a note on the data they studied:

To come up with our answers, we've used the statistical footprints of literally thousands of pro football games. We've calculated more than five hundred NFL games on a play-by-play basis. That's more than two seasons' worth. For specific reference, we'll use all of the games played in the 1997 season.

...On the subject of equating yards to points:

In the NFL, it takes about 12 yards of offense to add a point on the scoreboard.

They have plenty of analysis that backs this up...

Who does more for his team with respect to field position, a great punter or a great gunner? A great punter or a great returner? I'd say a great punter. I think punters account for more positive change in field position than gunners/returners. And, per the analysis above, a 42 yard punt (Guy's average) is worth 3.5 points.However, probably a more appropriate way to look at it is the delta between a great punter and an average punter vs. the delta between a great gunner or returner and an average gunner/returner. I'm not sure how this comparison would turn out.

Wonder if that's something Aaron Schatz and the guys at FO would look at?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I'm still waiting for someone to discuss whether they think that Ray Guy or Steve Tasker helped their team win more games. I understand if that isn't the determining factor for the HOF, but it almost sounds like people believe that Guy was more helpful to the Raiders in winning games than Tasker was to the Bills and I just can't see how that is possible. I understand that CalBear and others dismiss the WR totals and I would agree in the sense that it should be considered separately as a HOF criteria. But didn't those 20 some catches, 300 some yards and 3 TDs those two years do more to help the Bills win games than Guy's 9 punts a game? What am I missing?

I dont know why you insist on comparing Tasker to Guy to try and prove your point that Tasker should be in the HOF.1. Ray Guy is not in the HOF2. Ray Guy will likely never be in the HOF because the voters recognize that Guy wasnt a football player. He was a punter. It is very likely that a punter never gets put into the HOF.Tasker was a good football player. Guy was a good punter. Apples and Oranges.

The real crux of my argument is really twofold: I think that there should be the very best of special teams players in the HOF and that all the talk to that end is that it should be Ray Guy. I think that it should be obvious (as you stated in another post: to anyone that watches football) that Steve Tasker is a better candidate for the HOF as a ST player than Ray Guy. He was more of a football player (as stated before, kickers and punters aren't thought of as football players), he was on the field more, and I think he contributed more to his team winning football games than Guy did. Certainly neither may ever get in the Hall, but if any ST player should get in over the next 10 years or so, it should be Tasker, not Guy.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I'm still waiting for someone to discuss whether they think that Ray Guy or Steve Tasker helped their team win more games. I understand if that isn't the determining factor for the HOF, but it almost sounds like people believe that Guy was more helpful to the Raiders in winning games than Tasker was to the Bills and I just can't see how that is possible. I understand that CalBear and others dismiss the WR totals and I would agree in the sense that it should be considered separately as a HOF criteria. But didn't those 20 some catches, 300 some yards and 3 TDs those two years do more to help the Bills win games than Guy's 9 punts a game? What am I missing?

I don't think either of them belong in the HOF. Both of them belong in the "Hall Of People Madden Loves To Blather On About", which is much larger than the HOF.

Does Madden blather on about Tasker that much? I don't remember that. In fact, given that he worked NFC games during Tasker's career, I don't know how he would have called more than one or two games that Tasker ever played. Where do you get that idea?

 

[Pat Patriot]

I'm still waiting for someone to discuss whether they think that Ray Guy or Steve Tasker helped their team win more games. I understand if that isn't the determining factor for the HOF, but it almost sounds like people believe that Guy was more helpful to the Raiders in winning games than Tasker was to the Bills and I just can't see how that is possible. I understand that CalBear and others dismiss the WR totals and I would agree in the sense that it should be considered separately as a HOF criteria. But didn't those 20 some catches, 300 some yards and 3 TDs those two years do more to help the Bills win games than Guy's 9 punts a game? What am I missing?

I dont know why you insist on comparing Tasker to Guy to try and prove your point that Tasker should be in the HOF.1. Ray Guy is not in the HOF

2. Ray Guy will likely never be in the HOF because the voters recognize that Guy wasnt a football player. He was a punter. It is very likely that a punter never gets put into the HOF.

Tasker was a good football player. Guy was a good punter. Apples and Oranges.

The real crux of my argument is really twofold: I think that there should be the very best of special teams players in the HOF and that all the talk to that end is that it should be Ray Guy. I think that it should be obvious (as you stated in another post: to anyone that watches football) that Steve Tasker is a better candidate for the HOF as a ST player than Ray Guy. He was more of a football player (as stated before, kickers and punters aren't thought of as football players), he was on the field more, and I think he contributed more to his team winning football games than Guy did. Certainly neither may ever get in the Hall, but if any ST player should get in over the next 10 years or so, it should be Tasker, not Guy.

Please dont put words in my mouth. I think that Steve Tasker was a better football player than Ray Guy but neither is even CLOSE to being a HOF candidate IMO.

 

[Tau837]

I think that it should be obvious (as you stated in another post: to anyone that watches football) that Steve Tasker is a better candidate for the HOF as a ST player than Ray Guy. He was more of a football player (as stated before, kickers and punters aren't thought of as football players), he was on the field more, and I think he contributed more to his team winning football games than Guy did. Certainly neither may ever get in the Hall, but if any ST player should get in over the next 10 years or so, it should be Tasker, not Guy.

This has been a fairly interesting discussion, but it has led me to the opposite viewpoint.If we look at either Guy or Tasker as "football players", I don't think either ever gets in, because they don't measure up to the "football players" on offense and defense.So it comes down to whether we are willing to consider specialists separately from offensive and defensive players. If so, then what defines a specialist? I'm not sure a gunner/returner is really a specialist, since any number of players on the team could fill that role, but kickers and punters clearly are specialists. So if we are willing to differentiate specialists, IMO Guy has a better chance than Tasker, although as I have said a few times here, I'm not convinced Guy is the best punter of all time, so I'm not sure he is the right punter to be chosen for induction.And if we look at which one contributed more to his team winning football games, I'm not at all convinced Tasker did more than Guy or any other good punter, anyway (see my post about field position).

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I'm still waiting for someone to discuss whether they think that Ray Guy or Steve Tasker helped their team win more games. I understand if that isn't the determining factor for the HOF, but it almost sounds like people believe that Guy was more helpful to the Raiders in winning games than Tasker was to the Bills and I just can't see how that is possible. I understand that CalBear and others dismiss the WR totals and I would agree in the sense that it should be considered separately as a HOF criteria. But didn't those 20 some catches, 300 some yards and 3 TDs those two years do more to help the Bills win games than Guy's 9 punts a game? What am I missing?

I dont know why you insist on comparing Tasker to Guy to try and prove your point that Tasker should be in the HOF.1. Ray Guy is not in the HOF

2. Ray Guy will likely never be in the HOF because the voters recognize that Guy wasnt a football player. He was a punter. It is very likely that a punter never gets put into the HOF.

Tasker was a good football player. Guy was a good punter. Apples and Oranges.

The real crux of my argument is really twofold: I think that there should be the very best of special teams players in the HOF and that all the talk to that end is that it should be Ray Guy. I think that it should be obvious (as you stated in another post: to anyone that watches football) that Steve Tasker is a better candidate for the HOF as a ST player than Ray Guy. He was more of a football player (as stated before, kickers and punters aren't thought of as football players), he was on the field more, and I think he contributed more to his team winning football games than Guy did. Certainly neither may ever get in the Hall, but if any ST player should get in over the next 10 years or so, it should be Tasker, not Guy.

Please dont put words in my mouth. I think that Steve Tasker was a better football player than Ray Guy but neither is even CLOSE to being a HOF candidate IMO.

Actually, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth in that respect. I meant in your "anyone who watches football" phrase, which is a pretty unnecessary thing to say.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I think that it should be obvious (as you stated in another post: to anyone that watches football) that Steve Tasker is a better candidate for the HOF as a ST player than Ray Guy. He was more of a football player (as stated before, kickers and punters aren't thought of as football players), he was on the field more, and I think he contributed more to his team winning football games than Guy did. Certainly neither may ever get in the Hall, but if any ST player should get in over the next 10 years or so, it should be Tasker, not Guy.

This has been a fairly interesting discussion, but it has led me to the opposite viewpoint.If we look at either Guy or Tasker as "football players", I don't think either ever gets in, because they don't measure up to the "football players" on offense and defense.So it comes down to whether we are willing to consider specialists separately from offensive and defensive players. If so, then what defines a specialist? I'm not sure a gunner/returner is really a specialist, since any number of players on the team could fill that role, but kickers and punters clearly are specialists. So if we are willing to differentiate specialists, IMO Guy has a better chance than Tasker, although as I have said a few times here, I'm not convinced Guy is the best punter of all time, so I'm not sure he is the right punter to be chosen for induction.And if we look at which one contributed more to his team winning football games, I'm not at all convinced Tasker did more than Guy or any other good punter, anyway (see my post about field position).

I understand the field position idea versus the gunner. But my point was when you add in the other things that Tasker did, like return kicks and punts, block a few, I think he held for extra points at one time and those "small" contributions as a WR, I think it adds up to doing more than Guy did, and to doing more to help his team win. It would be fascinating (or tedious, LOL) to figure out how often a punter is responsible for field position versus the gunner. You could say that if there is a certain amount of hang time, for instance, than it was a high punt that was fair caught regardless of the gunner. You could also say that for shorter hang times, maybe the ability of the gunner to beat the two man press at the line and get down the field caused the return man to fair catch it. Certainly some interesting ideas and I take my hat off to you for being very civil during this discussion instead of implying I am crazy or an idiot like others have.

 

[MarshallRob]

I think that it should be obvious (as you stated in another post: to anyone that watches football) that Steve Tasker is a better candidate for the HOF as a ST player than Ray Guy. He was more of a football player (as stated before, kickers and punters aren't thought of as football players), he was on the field more, and I think he contributed more to his team winning football games than Guy did. Certainly neither may ever get in the Hall, but if any ST player should get in over the next 10 years or so, it should be Tasker, not Guy.

This has been a fairly interesting discussion, but it has led me to the opposite viewpoint.If we look at either Guy or Tasker as "football players", I don't think either ever gets in, because they don't measure up to the "football players" on offense and defense.So it comes down to whether we are willing to consider specialists separately from offensive and defensive players. If so, then what defines a specialist? I'm not sure a gunner/returner is really a specialist, since any number of players on the team could fill that role, but kickers and punters clearly are specialists. So if we are willing to differentiate specialists, IMO Guy has a better chance than Tasker, although as I have said a few times here, I'm not convinced Guy is the best punter of all time, so I'm not sure he is the right punter to be chosen for induction.And if we look at which one contributed more to his team winning football games, I'm not at all convinced Tasker did more than Guy or any other good punter, anyway (see my post about field position).

I understand the field position idea versus the gunner. But my point was when you add in the other things that Tasker did, like return kicks and punts, block a few, I think he held for extra points at one time and those "small" contributions as a WR, I think it adds up to doing more than Guy did, and to doing more to help his team win. It would be fascinating (or tedious, LOL) to figure out how often a punter is responsible for field position versus the gunner. You could say that if there is a certain amount of hang time, for instance, than it was a high punt that was fair caught regardless of the gunner. You could also say that for shorter hang times, maybe the ability of the gunner to beat the two man press at the line and get down the field caused the return man to fair catch it. Certainly some interesting ideas and I take my hat off to you for being very civil during this discussion instead of implying I am crazy or an idiot like others have.

It's really hard to make a case for Tasker without any idea of the advantage a great special teams cover man provides over an average one. Did Tasker force an unusual amount of fumbles? Did the Bills' special teams usually give up fewer return yards than other teams' coverage units? I have no idea. As for Guy, in all the HOF conversations about him that I've seen on this board, nobody has ever presented the statistical case for him. Basically, the argument for him has been: "he's the greatest punter ever and the Hall of Fame should induct the greatest punter ever." I'm still waiting for proof that Guy is the greatest ever. Now he made a lot of All Pro teams so people thought he was the best when he was active. But remember, that was pre-Information Age. The only punting statistic you would see back in Guy's era was gross average.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I think that it should be obvious (as you stated in another post: to anyone that watches football) that Steve Tasker is a better candidate for the HOF as a ST player than Ray Guy. He was more of a football player (as stated before, kickers and punters aren't thought of as football players), he was on the field more, and I think he contributed more to his team winning football games than Guy did. Certainly neither may ever get in the Hall, but if any ST player should get in over the next 10 years or so, it should be Tasker, not Guy.

This has been a fairly interesting discussion, but it has led me to the opposite viewpoint.If we look at either Guy or Tasker as "football players", I don't think either ever gets in, because they don't measure up to the "football players" on offense and defense.So it comes down to whether we are willing to consider specialists separately from offensive and defensive players. If so, then what defines a specialist? I'm not sure a gunner/returner is really a specialist, since any number of players on the team could fill that role, but kickers and punters clearly are specialists. So if we are willing to differentiate specialists, IMO Guy has a better chance than Tasker, although as I have said a few times here, I'm not convinced Guy is the best punter of all time, so I'm not sure he is the right punter to be chosen for induction.And if we look at which one contributed more to his team winning football games, I'm not at all convinced Tasker did more than Guy or any other good punter, anyway (see my post about field position).

I understand the field position idea versus the gunner. But my point was when you add in the other things that Tasker did, like return kicks and punts, block a few, I think he held for extra points at one time and those "small" contributions as a WR, I think it adds up to doing more than Guy did, and to doing more to help his team win. It would be fascinating (or tedious, LOL) to figure out how often a punter is responsible for field position versus the gunner. You could say that if there is a certain amount of hang time, for instance, than it was a high punt that was fair caught regardless of the gunner. You could also say that for shorter hang times, maybe the ability of the gunner to beat the two man press at the line and get down the field caused the return man to fair catch it. Certainly some interesting ideas and I take my hat off to you for being very civil during this discussion instead of implying I am crazy or an idiot like others have.

It's really hard to make a case for Tasker without any idea of the advantage a great special teams cover man provides over an average one. Did Tasker force an unusual amount of fumbles? Did the Bills' special teams usually give up fewer return yards than other teams' coverage units? I have no idea. As for Guy, in all the HOF conversations about him that I've seen on this board, nobody has ever presented the statistical case for him. Basically, the argument for him has been: "he's the greatest punter ever and the Hall of Fame should induct the greatest punter ever." I'm still waiting for proof that Guy is the greatest ever. Now he made a lot of All Pro teams so people thought he was the best when he was active. But remember, that was pre-Information Age. The only punting statistic you would see back in Guy's era was gross average.

Yeah, it really is an issue at those positions without stats or without many stats, like Punters, ST guys, O Lineman and even D Lineman to a degree. I think the problem is that the HOF shouldn't fall into what I would call the "Heisman Trophy mentality", where it's so much easier to measue players with lots of statistics that 90% of the players who win are QBs, RBs or WRs. It's a tough job, but I do think that the guys at footballoutsiders are doing an excellent job trying to come up with ways to measure the contributions of all players. I would love for them to do a Historical Football Prospectus, like Bill James did with the baseball Abstract.

 

[CalBear]

Yeah, it really is an issue at those positions without stats or without many stats, like Punters, ST guys, O Lineman and even D Lineman to a degree. I think the problem is that the HOF shouldn't fall into what I would call the "Heisman Trophy mentality", where it's so much easier to measue players with lots of statistics that 90% of the players who win are QBs, RBs or WRs.

Well, you don't have to worry about that: there are more offensive linemen and defensive linemen in the Hall than there are QBs, RBs, or WRs, so HOF voters clearly aren't that concerned with stats.There's only one kicker, and he doesn't belong there. (Quick, without looking it up: What's Stenerud's career field goal percentage?)

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I'm not willing to go out on the ledge ConstruxBoy is in this thread, but I think the strongest part of Tasker's case is the # of Pro Bowls he made and maybe the MVP award from the Pro Bowl. He probably would get some more serious HOF consideration if those Bills teams weren't so loaded with talent. As things stand, he's probably too far down the list of key players on those teams (which didn't win the big one), but I think his unique ability and contributions are certainly worthy of recognition by people who follow football.

Given that Pro Bowls are the strongest part of his resume, I'm curious if he has the most Pro Bowls of any special teams player. If so, who ranks 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc? For example, if he has 7 and the next highest only has 2 or 3, then that might indicate how much better he was than anyone else who played that "position". I realize they haven't been inviting ST players forever so it's probably not a very big list of guys who have gone over and over again. If you wanted to include punters and kickers, I guess that might be interesting to consider as well.

anyone have that info?

 

[CalBear]

I'm not willing to go out on the ledge ConstruxBoy is in this thread, but I think the strongest part of Tasker's case is the # of Pro Bowls he made and maybe the MVP award from the Pro Bowl.

Pro Bowl MVP is completely laughable as a qualification for the Hall of Fame. Garo Yepremian qualifies, as does Billy "White Shoes" Johnson.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I'm not willing to go out on the ledge ConstruxBoy is in this thread, but I think the strongest part of Tasker's case is the # of Pro Bowls he made and maybe the MVP award from the Pro Bowl.

Pro Bowl MVP is completely laughable as a qualification for the Hall of Fame. Garo Yepremian qualifies, as does Billy "White Shoes" Johnson.

fair enough. I said "maybe"

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I'm not willing to go out on the ledge ConstruxBoy is in this thread, but I think the strongest part of Tasker's case is the # of Pro Bowls he made and maybe the MVP award from the Pro Bowl. He probably would get some more serious HOF consideration if those Bills teams weren't so loaded with talent. As things stand, he's probably too far down the list of key players on those teams (which didn't win the big one), but I think his unique ability and contributions are certainly worthy of recognition by people who follow football.Given that Pro Bowls are the strongest part of his resume, I'm curious if he has the most Pro Bowls of any special teams player. If so, who ranks 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc? For example, if he has 7 and the next highest only has 2 or 3, then that might indicate how much better he was than anyone else who played that "position". I realize they haven't been inviting ST players forever so it's probably not a very big list of guys who have gone over and over again. If you wanted to include punters and kickers, I guess that might be interesting to consider as well.anyone have that info?

At this point I'd be willing to let you push me off that ledge.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Yeah, it really is an issue at those positions without stats or without many stats, like Punters, ST guys, O Lineman and even D Lineman to a degree. I think the problem is that the HOF shouldn't fall into what I would call the "Heisman Trophy mentality", where it's so much easier to measue players with lots of statistics that 90% of the players who win are QBs, RBs or WRs.

Well, you don't have to worry about that: there are more offensive linemen and defensive linemen in the Hall than there are QBs, RBs, or WRs, so HOF voters clearly aren't that concerned with stats.There's only one kicker, and he doesn't belong there. (Quick, without looking it up: What's Stenerud's career field goal percentage?)

Just for the record: You don't think there should be any kickers, punters or special teams players in the Hall ever? You are counting return men, right?

 

[Pat Patriot]

Yeah, it really is an issue at those positions without stats or without many stats, like Punters, ST guys, O Lineman and even D Lineman to a degree. I think the problem is that the HOF shouldn't fall into what I would call the "Heisman Trophy mentality", where it's so much easier to measue players with lots of statistics that 90% of the players who win are QBs, RBs or WRs.

Well, you don't have to worry about that: there are more offensive linemen and defensive linemen in the Hall than there are QBs, RBs, or WRs, so HOF voters clearly aren't that concerned with stats.There's only one kicker, and he doesn't belong there. (Quick, without looking it up: What's Stenerud's career field goal percentage?)

Just for the record: You don't think there should be any kickers, punters or special teams players in the Hall ever? You are counting return men, right?

CORRECT. The HOF is for football players. SPECIALISTS have their place in football but are not HOF caliber contributors.

 

[CalBear]

Yeah, it really is an issue at those positions without stats or without many stats, like Punters, ST guys, O Lineman and even D Lineman to a degree. I think the problem is that the HOF shouldn't fall into what I would call the "Heisman Trophy mentality", where it's so much easier to measue players with lots of statistics that 90% of the players who win are QBs, RBs or WRs.

Well, you don't have to worry about that: there are more offensive linemen and defensive linemen in the Hall than there are QBs, RBs, or WRs, so HOF voters clearly aren't that concerned with stats.There's only one kicker, and he doesn't belong there. (Quick, without looking it up: What's Stenerud's career field goal percentage?)

Just for the record: You don't think there should be any kickers, punters or special teams players in the Hall ever? You are counting return men, right?

I don't think Jan Stenerud should be in there, and I don't think Ray Guy or Steve Tasker should be, either. I am willing to accept the idea that someone could be Hall-worthy at one of those positions, but it would take a lot more than a handful of notable plays over a career.