Rico Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 You can't write the history of the game with Larry Brown, Malcolm Butler, Dwight Clark, or David Tyree either. That doesn't make them HOFers. Swann and Stallworth won a lot but they are not HOF caliber players (especially Swann). That's an individual honor to bestowed upon the greatest players, not guys that won a lot. 3 of the 4 you mention made singular HOF plays, with Dwight Clark being a little above them. Swann and Stallworth made many plays in many big games. And I definitely emphasize big game performances, but that's just me. Do you think Kyle Williams is worthy of consideration? I do not, not even close. If nothing else, he would certainly fail the FAME part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klos63 Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 My definition is a HOFer is among the best of his time. For example, Lynn Swann was one of 4 WR named to the ALL 70s team along with Paul Warfield, Harold Carmichael and Drew Pearson. Between the 4 of them they all averaged between 40-49 catches a season, 700-800 yards and 6-7 TDS . These guys were the best of their ERA and deserve to be acknowledged for it. Otherwise you just end up with all the best players being from certain statistical eras. Warfield is in, do you think Carmichael and Pearson should also be in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 I don't know. He had a few exceptional years, many very mediocre seasons. He's borderline. His arena football and NFL Europe stints shouldn't have anything to do with case for the Hall. The voters only looked at his success. Without researching I can't imagine a QB in the HOF that had as many poor seasons as he did. Joe Namath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 Warfield is in, do you think Carmichael and Pearson should also be in? Sure why not. The all 1990s WR were Rice, Irvin, Carter and Tim Brown. Would you leave any of them out? They are all in, and that doesn't even include Andre Reed. The argument used against the older(70s) receivers numbers is not normalized. The numbers are just too different to use to compare receivers to current players. I think Paul Warfield, Lynn Swann would have put up much better numbers had they played in the 90s for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 3 of the 4 you mention made singular HOF plays, with Dwight Clark being a little above them. Swann and Stallworth made many plays in many big games. And I definitely emphasize big game performances, but that's just me. Do you think Kyle Williams is worthy of consideration? I do not, not even close. If nothing else, he would certainly fail the FAME part. No, I think Kyle is a Wall of Fame guy but not HOF. Big game performances certainly matter. That's why a lot of guys are in the HOF in different sports. It should be certainly bump you up. As an example Aikman was a pretty good QB but is in the HOF because he won. Obviously Swann didn't play in a passing era but you can't statiscally be 246 catches, 3,512 yards and 33 TDs short of Mark Clayton. Clayton was a nice player but nobody is calling him a HOFer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 Sure why not. The all 1990s WR were Rice, Irvin, Carter and Tim Brown. Would you leave any of them out? They are all in, and that doesn't even include Andre Reed. The argument used against the older(70s) receivers numbers is not normalized. The numbers are just too different to use to compare receivers to current players. I think Paul Warfield, Lynn Swann would have put up much better numbers had they played in the 90s for example. I would leave out Carter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 It has to be about more than purely the numbers. Story, impact on the game and big game performance matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 I would leave out Carter. That's fine. Your argument is smaller HOF one then. Instead of the top 4-5 receivers of an era, maybe something like top 2-3 guys instead. I don't have a problem with that. I don't think the standard in use is that stringent though, because there are guys already in who weren't among the top 2-3 guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 It has to be about more than purely the numbers. Story, impact on the game and big game performance matter.I'm not arguing that they matter but it's the Bill Mazerowski argument (man I am picking on Pittsburgh). He was a .260 hitter with no pop. One big homer doesn't change that's who he is. Big moments elevate your case and bump you up a tier but they don't change who the player was. He has to be judged against others that do the same thing. We have NFL films to commemorate the important moments of the game. The HOF is to recognize the greatest players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 I'm not arguing that they matter but it's the Bill Mazerowski argument (man I am picking on Pittsburgh). He was a .260 hitter with no pop. One big homer doesn't change that's who he is. Big moments elevate your case and bump you up a tier but they don't change who the player was. He has to be judged against others that do the same thing. We have NFL films to commemorate the important moments of the game. The HOF is to recognize the greatest players. Bill Mazeroski was a mistake and voted in by the veteran's committee, which has made almost all the mistakes in the baseball HOF. He is in no way similar to the impact of Lynn Swann. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 We have NFL films to commemorate the important moments of the game. The HOF is to recognize the greatest players. I think greatness is about more than numbers too though. And I have no idea about Baseball. Silly game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 Anyone who thinks Swann is not a Hall Of Famer couldnt possibly have watched him play.The game was different.The make-up of a team has to be put into consideration. The guy made spectacular plays and rarely dropped the ball....What is he supposed to do??--Make sure the coach runs more plays for him so he can pad his stats? While quality and quantity often go together;there are times when they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 I think greatness is about more than numbers too though. And I have no idea about Baseball. Silly game. I am agreeing that it is about more than numbers. Numbers are important though. He's not in the top 225 in catches or yards. He's 113th in TDs. Yes, it wasn't the same passing era but there are A LOT of guys between him and the top including many in the 70's and 80's. I used Clayton earlier. Stanley Morgan had 557 catches, 10,716 yards and 72 TDs. He had over 200 more catches and DOUBLE the yards. No one is banging the table for him to go into the hall. There are TONS of examples like that. Swann also played at a time where certain teams were seen more. That played a role for sure. He was very talented but did not produce the way that other HOFers did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 Anyone who thinks Swann is not a Hall Of Famer couldnt possibly have watched him play.The game was different.The make-up of a team has to be put into consideration. The guy made spectacular plays and rarely dropped the ball....What is he supposed to do??--Make sure the coach runs more plays for him so he can pad his stats? While quality and quantity often go together;there are times when they don't. I have no complaint about Swann being in the Hall of Fame. Now, John Stallworth on the other hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 So you're saying: He could have gone to the NFL, but voluntarily chose the Arena league or where ever it was before the NFL so we should count all those years? That he didn't end up the starter only after Trent Green blew out his ACL and when Vermeil cried in the press conference announcing Green was out for the year it was really tears of joy that now he could start Warner? A 12 year career which only six of the 12 season had a record of better than .500 and three times with three different teams being benched and replaced is HOF caliper?? He was inducted into the Arena League HOF BTW Not saying he absolutely doesn't belong in the HOF, but do think he's marginal career, likely the back story helped sway some votes his way. I disagree with just about everything you wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 FWIW, here's a fun article on the least deserving HOFers: https://www.google.com/amp/ftw.usatoday.com/2015/08/pro-football-nfl-hall-of-fame-who-doesnt-belong-worst-troy-aikman-canton/amp?client=safari(be aware Marv is on the list). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 (edited) Can someone give me the names of a few players who could have played in the NFL, but instead voilunaraily chose the Arena League, NFL Europe, or even the Canadian league to play in, then I'll start considering Warners years in the Arena league towards his HOF credentials. Just Googled Kurt Warners Playing career and Professional career. In both cases no mention of Arena League years, just NFL The off field story had more to do with him getting voted in than what he did on the field in a somewhat short career. I don't know. He had a few exceptional years, many very mediocre seasons. He's borderline. His arena football and NFL Europe stints shouldn't have anything to do with case for the Hall. The voters only looked at his success. Without researching I can't imagine a QB in the HOF that had as many poor seasons as he did. Edited February 5, 2017 by Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 FWIW, here's a fun article on the least deserving HOFers: https://www.google.com/amp/ftw.usatoday.com/2015/08/pro-football-nfl-hall-of-fame-who-doesnt-belong-worst-troy-aikman-canton/amp?client=safari(be aware Marv is on the list). Crappy article. The guy must be like 12 who wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 I am agreeing that it is about more than numbers. Numbers are important though. He's not in the top 225 in catches or yards. He's 113th in TDs. Yes, it wasn't the same passing era but there are A LOT of guys between him and the top including many in the 70's and 80's. I used Clayton earlier. Stanley Morgan had 557 catches, 10,716 yards and 72 TDs. He had over 200 more catches and DOUBLE the yards. No one is banging the table for him to go into the hall. There are TONS of examples like that. Swann also played at a time where certain teams were seen more. That played a role for sure. He was very talented but did not produce the way that other HOFers did. I can't comment on Swann as a specific case. Waaaaay before my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted February 5, 2017 Share Posted February 5, 2017 Don't disagree with many. I do recall at the time, there were those who had commented that Marv got elected due to his involvement with the media after he stopped coaching and that helped him get elected. Well Aikman's number compare pretty close with Warner as far as years played, and record, so guess you can argue if one made it in, both should be in. I've said for years it's too hard to get into the Baseball HOF and too easy to get into the Football HOF FWIW, here's a fun article on the least deserving HOFers: https://www.google.com/amp/ftw.usatoday.com/2015/08/pro-football-nfl-hall-of-fame-who-doesnt-belong-worst-troy-aikman-canton/amp?client=safari(be aware Marv is on the list). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts