Marshall Goldberg, Emmitt Thomas Named Pro Football Hall of Fame Senior Nominees
August 23, 2007 by David Kindervater
Filed under Pro Football HOF
Blogging the National Football League, Blogging the NFL
It seems like I just left the 2007 Pro Football Hall of Fame Enshrinement Ceremony (it was about three weeks ago), but next year’s class is already being discussed. Today, Chicago Cardinals back Marshall Goldberg and Kansas City Chiefs defensive back Emmitt Thomas were selected by the Pro Football Hall of Fame’s Seniors Committee as finalists for election into the Hall of Fame with the Class of 2008. The duo will join 15 still-to-be-named modern-era candidates on the list of finalists from which the Class of 2008 will be selected. The Hall of Fame selection meeting will be held on February 2, 2008, the day before Super Bowl XLII in Arizona. To be elected, Marshall Goldberg and Emmitt Thomas must each receive the same 80% voting support that is required of all finalists. The Hall’s Board of Selectors can elect a maximum of two senior candidates and five modern-era candidates for a class no smaller than four or larger than seven during next February’s meeting.
Sheila Rhodes and Ken Stabler belong in the
hall of fame now.
Neither Marshall Goldberg nor Emmitt Thomas belong in the HoF — terrible choices both to put forth. Re Goldberg: he played 8 years, about half of it during WWII against a depleted talent pool. And even then, his numbers look like Hall of the Very Good, and that is being really charitable. He never was a first team all pro and is not on any all decade teams (there was no pro bowl back then). And he had already come up as a Seniors candidate in 1979 and was voted down. Why choose him when they could have picked 40s linemen Al Wistert or Riley Matheson, both named to several all pro teams? Or 20s lineman Duke Slater, a fine player whose career was hurt as badly by racism as that of Fritz Pollard? Or 20s end Lavie Dilweg? Or if they needed a back, why not Dilweg’s teammate Verne Lewellen?
More re Thomas shortly.
Re Emmitt Thomas: please tell me why Thomas was chosen ahead of other DBs who are equally or more deserving, including (deep breath) Cliff Harris, Johnny Robinson, Lemar Parrish, Bobby Dillon, Bob Boyd, Abe Woodson, Jack Butler, and Jim Patton. Sure, Thomas has lots of interceptions — but so do Robinson and Boyd. Thomas was an all pro twice, but except for Robinson, who spent almost all his career in the AFL, every one of these players made more such teams: Parrish and Butler 3, Boyd, Harris, and Woodson 4, Patton and Dillon 5. If you compare pro bowl appearances (or AFL equivalents), Thomas has 5 but so do Woodson and Patton, while Harris has 6, Robinson has 7, and Parrish 8. Dillon has 4. Butler also has 4 and Boyd only 2, but both are on their respective all-decade teams. And lots of INTs can mean several things, from the good (like a good cover guy with a good nose for the ball) to the bad (like a guy who gets thrown on a lot because he’s the weakest DB or a gambling cover guy who gets lots of picks but also gets toasted for big gainers and TDs). What I’ve seen written about Thomas suggests he was likely the gambling coverage DB type. I don’t get this choice, either.
Ken Stabler isn’t eligible as a Senior’s candidate yet. As far as I can tell, he’s got two more years of regular candidacy left.
But I don’t see that Stabler is any better than a bubble candidate at best. Stabler had about 4 great years surrounded by about 11 mediocre to bad years. I’d sooner see Ken Anderson get in.
dude, you have to be kidding me . Emmitt Thomas made the AFL defense what it became, he played legt defense. played it well, did not use stickium, coached at various levels of play, : He could play man to man with the best of them. Whatever the best player , Emmitt took him . Man Emmitt coud play some d…
johhny j:
No dude, not kidding you. Would you care to address the points made above directly instead of playing cheerleader with vague observations? Why does Emmitt Thomas belong in the HoF ahead of Cliff Harris, Johnny Robinson, Lemar Parrish, Bobby Dillon, Bob Boyd, Abe Woodson, Jack Butler, and Jim Patton? BTW, coaching doesn’t enter into it here.
To bachslunch,
I am very disappointed in your comments regarding Emmitt Thomas being selected to the Hall of Fame. However it shows that you are not as football oriented as you think you are. Emmitt is very deserving of this award. You need to check the stats and do some long research.
I am very proud to have known Emmitt Thomas and he is one of the best that played the came.
Not only was he an excellent cornerback, he also was a great coach.
Debra Thomas Jones-Williams
West Columbia, Texas
PS: Congragulation to Emmitt Thomas!!!
Debra–
Please tell me which stats for Thomas I need to check besides these:
–2 first team all pro selections (1974, 1975)
–5 pro bowls (1968, 1971, 1972, 1974, 1975)
–no all decade team memberships
In the post above, I’ve compared Thomas’s numbers on these parameters to Cliff Harris, Abe Woodson, Jim Patton, Johnny Robinson, Bob Boyd, Lemar Parrish, Bobby Dillon, and Jack Butler. Would you please explain to me why he’s more deserving than all of them?
–currently 9th all time in interceptions (58)
If interceptions are so important, please tell me why Dick LeBeau, Dave Brown, and Ken Riley aren’t more deserving since they have more interceptions than Thomas. And please tell me why seemingly very deserving DBs like Jack Christiansen, Herb Adderley, Mike Haynes, Jim Johnson, Ken Houston, Willie Wood, and Roger Wehrli, all of whom have fewer INTs, are in the HoF?
Please also explain why you think I am not “football oriented.” And please describe in detail what made Thomas an excellent cornerback. I’m happy to be enlightened using in particular all the numbers in good context you can.
Debra–
You also said:
“I am very disappointed in your comments regarding Emmitt Thomas being selected to the Hall of Fame.”
In fact, my observations regarding Thomas on this thread date back to November, well before his election in February. So my comments are actually not regarding his “being selected to the Hall of Fame” — they were made well before then. For whatever reason, johhny j decided to dredge up my 2+ month old post on the day Thomas got elected and squawk about it. Feel free to complain to him about the circumstance if you like.
Emmitt Thomas was an excellent player and rightfully so belongs in the HOF; I’m just disappointed that the greatest Giants Defensive back, Jim Patton is not in the HOF; his numbers are equal to those of Thomas’s. I watched Jimmy Patton when I was young; he was all over the field, hit hard when tackling his foe in the open field, had great hands receiving kickoffs, punts, and was great intercepting passes. It’s a travesty that he has not been elected to the HOF up to now. I just hope the Senior Committee brings his name up again and really delve into his playing days and his greatness with the New York Giants.
Thomas was a great athlete, but Johnny Robinson was the AFL’s All Time Safety as selected by the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He was also selected by the HOF to the All Decade Team of the 60’s. Check out the names on that team. Full of HOFers. Robinson redefined the role of safety in professional football. His own coach Hank Stram lobbied for him to be in the HOF. Sadly, Coach Stram passed away. Johnny Robinson was so valuable to the Chiefs that on their own HOF website for him they state that the Chiefs were 35-1-1 when Robinson made an interception in the game. That is a “Real” impact player. Also, Robinson ony played safety for ten of his twelve year career. He accomplished a great deal in that time helping his team win 8 division titles, 3 league championships, two Super Bowl appearences with one Super Bowl Championship. Yes Thomas should have a place someday, but not before Robinson who paid his dues.
Emmitt Thomas, in the mid 1970s, was clearly the best cornerback in the NFL at that time…a much, MUCH better DB than the slow footed Cliff Harris. Harris just screamed more than other players. So, he was seen more on those Cowboys teams.
I remember Emmitt Thomas intercepting 12 passes in 1974, even as the once great Chiefs began to get old. So, despite not having any pass rush that year, Thomas seem to catch as many balls (if not more) than the receivers he defended.
The list of guys he had to take on that year: Fred Belitnikoff, Cliff Branch, Paul Warfield, Isaac Curtis, Mel Gray, John Gilliam, etc, etc., some of the best ever.
If you are stupid enough to think that Thomas does not belong in the Hall, YOU TRY COVERING THE AFOREMENTIONED!
Thomas could run a 4.3 40 year yard dash in 1974! Most corners TODAY are not THAT fast. Cliff Harris would have a heart attack back then if he even tried! Harris would be dead right now.
But the reason why it does not matter; the reason why the NFL Hall of Fame is a complete farce with zero credibility is the omission of one of one of Thomas’ teammates: Otis Taylor.
If there was a player that resembled Julius Erving or Roberto Clemente in pro football, it was Taylor. He was (according to every other wide receiver of his era in the late sixties and early seventies…the guys who compared his game to theirs) the best in the game…period.
He is likely one of the five top receivers in the entire history of pro football. His stats lie like a con-man cause the Chiefs had an offensive line that would (literally) move a United States tank battallion….they ran the football all day long.
Otis Taylor was better than Terrell Owens or Michael Irvin or Lynn Swann or John Stallworth. He was a combination of Jerry Rice and Kellen Winslow…yup, THIS guy is not in the Hall of Shame!
That’s how good he was. And, because of some geeky stat nerds that know nothing about football, one of the greatest if not the very best receiver ever is NOT in the “Hall of Shame.”
The Pro Football Hall of Fame is a joke. It’s their loss if guys like Otis Taylor are not in.
Most guys that played against him or saw him play….Most coaches like John Madden….would have voted Taylor in 25 years ago.
Bottom line: Don’t lose any sleep over this disgrace of an organization.
They don’t know what they are doing. Your mom or 5 year old daughter knows more about the game.
A couple thoughts re Otis Taylor:
1. would like to see good evidence to support the idea that Otis Taylor (who certainly is a reasonable Seniors candidate) deserves to be nominated ahead of Mac Speedie, Billy Wilson, Bill Howton, Lionel Taylor, Bob Hayes, and Drew Pearson. And that list will likely be lengthened to include Cliff Branch, Harold Carmichael, Harold Jackson, and Isaac Curtis in a couple years.
2. if Otis Taylor is indeed “one of the five top receivers in the entire history of pro football,” then which two of, lets’ say, Jerry Rice, Don Hutson, Lance Alworth, Ray Berry, Steve Largent, and Paul Warfield does he push ahead of? And more importantly, why?
3. why tangibly was Taylor a better player than Michael Irvin and Terrell Owens? Note that character issues are off-limits, per the HoF’s own explicit guidelines.
4. how specifically is Taylor a combination of Jerry Rice and Kellen Winslow?
A few thoughts re Emmitt Thomas:
1. if speed is so trump-card overwhelmingly important, then why are Ray Berry and Steve Largent in the HoF and Mel Gray, Wesley Walker, and Homer Jones not?
2. any direct comparison of Cliff Harris and Emmitt Thomas only goes so far, as Harris was a safety and Thomas was a cornerback. And in fact, when you look at the 19 DBs in the HoF, only 7 were primarily safeties. One can thus argue that safeties are underrepresented here. So it’s fair to ask why yet another corner got nominated.
3. since when does a person have to be able to cover a receiver to make observations about a CB’s HoF worth? That’s like saying a music critic who cannot play the clarinet is unqualified to review a clarinet recital.
4. if Emmitt Thomas was indeed “clearly the best cornerback in the NFL at that time” [mid '70s], I’d be interested to see the argument full of tangibles that Thomas was a better CB than (for example) Willie Brown, Roger Wehrli, and Jimmy Johnson. And tread with care and context if mentioning number of INTs. Note that the CBs on the all-70s decade team are Brown, Johnson, Wehrli, and Louis Wright — Thomas isn’t on the team. Note also the first team all-pro numbers during that decade for CBs are: Brown (4), Wehrli (4), Johnson (3), Wright (2), Thomas (2), Mel Blount (2), Lemar Parrish (2), Monte Jackson (2), Robert James (1), Mel Renfro (1), Rolland Lawrence (1), Mike Haynes (1), and Willie Buchanon (1) — some years there are more than 2 CBs listed. Will post sources on request.
Good response, bachslunch, on Taylor.
I’ll start with the last question first (combination of Winslow and Rice):
You have to recall that Taylor was 6’3 220 lbs. Had the coaches wanted him to, he could have gained some weight and played tight end full-time.
As it was, the Chiefs lined Taylor up at tight end on occasion. Why? Because unlike Winslow (who was a great pass catching tight end), Taylor was a hellacious blocker. I mean who would put a defensive end on his butt on occasion.
There is a great moment during a Raiders game where defensive end “Big Ben Davidson” hurled himself into Len Dawson’s back (head first) after Len was on the ground. To get an idea of how strong and tough Taylor was, Otis ran up to Davidson and literally wrestled Davidson to the ground.
So, here was a wide receiver that had such strength that he was able to pin one of the biggest defensive linemen in football and even try to kick the lineman’s butt.
As for Rice, Jerry had the ability to take a short pass and do something special with it in the open field. Taylor was murder on those same pass patterns cause he was big, fast, elusive and very strong. That touchdown catch where he broke three tackles against that brutal Minnesota Vikings defense in Superbowl IV was but one of 100 times he did this in his career.
“why tangibly was Taylor a better player than Michael Irvin and Terrell Owens? Note that character issues are off-limits, per the
HoF’s own explicit guidelines.”
I admit to having zero respect for the HOF as I’ve seen too many great players not in the HOF….and I’m talking about better FOOTBALL PLAYERS than those that are in the HOF.
Remember, I said better FOOTBALL PLAYERS, not better stat guys.
Let me answer your question by asking you a few questions: How good a blocker was Michael Irvin? Do you recall him ever blocking anyone when he played pro football?
Taylor could do anything Irvin could do: Go deep and get a quick six, elude 5 tacklers, etc, etc. The difference is Taylor would do anything to win a game….including risk getting himself killed going over the middle to make a huge catch.
Speaking of going over the middle, how often have you seen Owens shy away from this pass route when a safety is nearby? Answer (in terms of what I’ve seen from Owens in a Cowboys uniform): OFTEN.
T.O. is a big, physical dude….that hears footsteps……even in key parts of the game. Don’t get me wrong……He’s a gamer….but not Otis Taylor when going over the middle or risking life & limb or doing the little things to win games.
“if Otis Taylor is indeed “one of the five top receivers in the entire history of pro football,” then which two of, lets’ say, Jerry Rice, Don Hutson, Lance Alworth, Ray Berry, Steve Largent, and Paul Warfield does he push ahead of? And more importantly, why?”
Largent does not belong with the other receivers you mentioned. He was a great bomb threat. But Seattle and Jim Zorn loved to throw the football all over the field, which inflated his opportunities and his numbers.
Let me give you an idea of how good Taylor was: All of the writers, players and coaches of his era would have long debates about who was better: Taylor or Alworth.
Scary result: Most of them chose Taylor in the late 60’s and early 70s.
DON’T GO BY ME: Ask the defensive backs that played at that time. I recall like it was yesterday most them saying Taylor was the best.
The reason why most people love Alworth is not so much because of Lance alone. It’s because Head Coach Sid Gillman was the best offensive mind in the history of football (in terms of throwing the football and scoring) up and until Bill Walsh came along. Gillman believed in throwing 80 yard passes if John Hadl felt good that day. San Diego had a wide open system…..almost like a downfield, vertical “run and shoot” offense.
Hank Stram had Jim Tyrer at tackle, Ed Budde at guard, Jack Rudnay at center, and a fourth All-Pro in Mo Moorman. This is one of the greatest offensive lines I’ve ever seen, as good as Gene Upshaw, Art Shell and Jim Otto after them in Oakland during the 70s.
Why risk throwing the football with this offensive line? Taylor put up great numbers and was still thought to be the best receiver (according to defensive backs of his era) despite Stram’s insistence on running the football down everyone’s throat most of the time.
Had Taylor played in Oakland or San Diego or with Namath, he’d still be running for a touchdown today.
Why would someone like John Madden (an opposing coach from a very hated rival) support Taylor’s entry? Why would most of the pass defenders of his day support his entry?
You can’t have better proof than that.
“would like to see good evidence to support the idea that Otis Taylor (who certainly is a reasonable Seniors candidate) deserves to be
nominated ahead of Mac Speedie, Billy Wilson, Bill Howton, Lionel Taylor, Bob Hayes, and Drew Pearson. And that list will likely be lengthened to include Cliff Branch, Harold Carmichael, Harold Jackson, and Isaac Curtis in a couple years.”
OK. I admit to not knowing a few guys on this list: Mac Speedie, Billy Wilson and Bill Howton do not ring a bell. I don’t know them. I’ll look them up as time avails….(run a business, time is expensive).
Hayes and Pearson don’t really compare to Taylor. The first two were great deep threats. But, not too much else….Pearson was a better rout runner and clutch player than Hayes.
Do you know who David Thompson is (NBA guard, Denver Nuggets years ago). How about Carmelo Anthony? Taylor could jump….I mean really leap.
He played Willis Reed in college basketball and held Reed in check while scoring points of his own…..against WILLIS REED….NY Knicks NBA HOF center that won two NBA titles.
Can YOU imagine Drew Pearson, Bob Hayes, Harold Jackson or Isaac Curtis being athletic enough to guard Willis Reed in the paint successfully? How about score points against Reed in the low post? How about score as many points as Reed would score against them? THAT is Otis Taylor. He did just that in a game.
We are not really talking about the same type of athlete at all.
Hayes and Pearson (as examples) are big names that played for the so called “America’s Team” and are favorites of the TV generation. But, would they’d be considered for the HOF had they played for the Saints? NOPE. They’d be just another Wes Chandler.
Carmichael was tall and caught TD passes. But, not even Carmichael would have had the physical strength and size to play tight end in professional football like Taylor did.
Most AFL guys will tell you that Otis Taylor was better than Lionel Taylor. Lionel had great numbers when the league was very young and made All-Star teams. Otis was the guy scoring the first AFL TD versus Green Bay.
Again, if you want to go by stats, you may be able to make a case that Wilbert Montgomery was a better football player than Bo Jackson….based on some very solid stats. Circumstances and situations happen to skew stats.
STATS LIE. You have to watch the games to know who’s great.
Does Taylor belong in the Hall? Of course. His very own peers and coaches (of his era) would quickly place him in without hesitation.
Despite my writing, will I lose sleep if he never makes it? Nope.
I (and many other folks) don’t think of the pro football hall of shame (fame) as a real measure of how good a player was or was not.
I certainly see it as a huge popularity contest where you get in faster if you play in New York or make friends with the media; etc; etc. Of course, the AFL has never been considered as good despite what the Jets and Chiefs did in bowls III and IV. So, it’s more of a NFL Hall of Shame, not taking AFL players as seriously even in 2008.
I’ll get to the CB’s later, bachslunch. You made some good points there.
“Brown (4), Wehrli (4), Johnson (3), Wright (2), Thomas (2), Mel Blount (2), Lemar Parrish (2), Monte Jackson (2), Robert James (1), Mel Renfro (1), Rolland Lawrence (1), Mike Haynes (1), and Willie Buchanon (1)”
Very good post.
Bachslunch, most of the guys you mention here that won All-Pro honors came from winning teams, which helped them win honors.
Not all, however. Willie Buchanon did not see too much success in Green Bay at that time. And the once feared Chiefs were very old by the mid 70s. So, Thomas All-Pro honors are impressive.
Willie Brown and Roger Wehrli won a ton of games (it’s hard to believe that the Cardinals were once very good….but they were…briefly in St. Louis). So, Willie and Roger got some votes because of this.
Mel Blount seemed scary good for years. But, Joe Greene was a huge reason why.
Thomas did his thing when the Chiefs D was getting ready to join AARP (except for Willie Lanier and Jim Lynch).
Bach, I’m not saying that speed alone should get you in. But, a 4.3 40 is an indication of a part of a players game that made him tough to beat downfield.
BTW, that 6′3 220 pound Otis Taylor I spoke of: He ran a 4.4 40 yard dash…..to go along with his many one handed, circus catches.
John, good discussion thus far. Some more thoughts:
1. I don’t buy the idea that statistics lie. But it’s also important to know how to interpret them and how much they can tell you. For example, the idea that Sterling Sharpe could be a reasonable WR for HoF consideration might not seem to be supported by statistics — until you realize his raw counting stats were complied in a very short but productive career. But on the other hand, having high counting stats is good for a WR regardless of the system played in, as it shows the player could produce well in the environment where he was put — Lance Alworth may have been a product of Gillman’s system, but he produced spectacularly, better than any other WR there. It also demonstrates that the WR was able to contribute at a solid level for a very long time, which adds to his value — it’s analogous to a pitcher like Don Sutton, who some people complained averaged about 14 wins over 23 seasons, but that indeed has solid value. In other words, the peak value vs. longevity argument.
2. weighing different things WRs can do is important. It’s commendable that, for example, Art Monk had a reputation as an excellent blocker, but it didn’t hurry him into the HoF. And some WRs managed to come up with sufficient blocking ability when they had to; I remember reading somewhere that in one game, Ray Berry had to block huge DE Doug Atkins — and he found a way to manage it. But in the final analysis, WRs have to catch balls, score TDs, and gain as much yardage as their style allows (obviously possession receivers will have lower average yardage) — that’s their bread and butter, while blocking ability, good as it is to have for a WR, is more like frosting.
More as time allows.
More thoughts:
1. If one is going to give extra credit to the mid-70s version of Emmitt Thomas for producing with an aging defensive line and LBs in front of him, you’ve got to give even more perks to Roger Wehrli. I’d gladly take the 1974 DL/LB KC group of Marvin Upshaw, Tom Keating, Buck Buchanan, Wilbur Young, Bobby Bell, Willie Lanier, and Jim Lynch (with Lanier and Lynch still playing well as stated above) over the 1974 St. Louis DL/LB group of Council Rudolph, Lee Brooks, Bob Rowe, Ron Yankowski, Larry Stallings, Mark Arneson, and Pete Barnes. Those good 1970s St. Louis teams had strong offenses (Jim Hart, Jackie Smith, Dan Dierdorf, Mel Gray, Terry Metcalf et. al.) but lousy defenses except for Wehrli, who if what I’ve read and heard is true was considered one of the most technically accomplished cover corners ever (maybe just a shade behind Deion Sanders and Jimmy Johnson, who likely were the best in this regard). And the other question one might perhaps ask is — why was Thomas presumably producing at less than 1st team all pro level when surrounded by a better KC cast earlier in his career? Mel Blount and Willie Brown seemingly did so while in excellent systems.
2. I’m not necessarily going to put heavy stock in who John Madden does or does not push for the HoF. He’s also pushed heavily for Kenny Stabler (who I don’t think belongs ahead of Kenny Anderson) and Ray Guy (who may be a better choice, but I’m hard pressed to see as the best punter who ever played football and is arguably a less egregious punter snub than Tommy Davis).
3. The list of former AFL players in the HoF is not actually all that short: Jim Otto, Billy Shaw, Ron Mix, George Blanda, Len Dawson, Buck Buchanan, Nick Buoniconti, Bobby Bell, Don Maynard, Lance Alworth, and Willie Brown — all in the HoF — played in at least 7 of the league’s 10 years. Sure, there are notable snubs too, including Jim Tyrer, Johnny Robinson, Walt Sweeney, Lionel Taylor, and Ed Budde. They can stand among other such worthies from practically every era.
4. if Otis Taylor could guard a basketball great, that’s fine. But it’s not germane to his HoF worth as far as I can see. As I’ve said before, Taylor’s well worth considering for this honor — but so are several other WRs.
More as time allows.
Good points.
Just an FYI that Emmitt Thomas was inducted into the HOF. The reasoning was pretty sound, according to the organization that voted him in: Thomas was “one of the best cornerbacks of his era.”
My argument for Otis Taylor is much the same.
Bach, here is an example of what I’m talking about: Someone at Sports Illustrated decided to dust off an old copy of the publication and post it on the web. It’s from 1971, when Taylor was still in his prime.
The article description reads as follows: “Otis Taylor of the Kansas City Chiefs (89) has no peer at receiving a football—left-handed, right-handed or with his hands behind his back.”
No peer. Now, consider the receivers that played at this time: Bob Hayes, Paul Warfield (you mentioned Lance Alworth), Charley Taylor, Fred Belitnikoff, Don Maynard, Gene Washington, Harold Jackson, John Gilliam, Roy Jefferson, etc, etc.
Most of these receivers are in the Hall of Fame. Otis Taylor however, the one that everyone felt was better than all of the aforementioned at that time, is not (amazingly). Again, I think he’s forever penalized for being in the AFL most of his career and for playing in a much more conservative offense than what we see today.
BTW, Taylor’s numbers are comparable or better than those of Lynn Swann.
Here is the link (or url) to the Sports Illustrated article on Taylor from 1971:
http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1085535/1/index.htm
Likewise, here is the link-url to what NFL guru Paul Zimmerman wrote eight years ago in Sports Illustrated. In it, he said that six recievers belong in the Hall of Fame (I did not know that Paul wrote this until today):
http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1019759/index.htm
It’s a popularity contest, Bach. Swann’s in there for his Superbowl catch against Dallas. Taylor is not because football was not as popular back then when compared to what it became after Monday Night Football.
Again, for someone like me that saw these guys play and knows that Taylor was better than his peers already in the HOF, it destroys the credibility of the place. I love football, live not far from Ohio, and refuse to go to Canton.
There are a number of players that were better than those already inducted. Your agument for Wehrli may support this assertion.
BTW, Ed Budde did make it. Ray Guy was unbelievable…I’m not sure if he’s in, but he should be.
Madden may be a bit biased about Stabler. But, I don’t think his bias lends itself to the very hated and despised Chiefs (the two teams literally still have so many fist-fights on the field that the refs often times just let them have at it without a penalty flag).
Madden saw the worst of it. It was very ugly. He says Taylor belongs very grudgingly.
Someone, however (maybe from the old AFL???), should build ANOTHER Hall of Fame and not discriminate against those that played in that league (the league that, based on what happened in Superbowls III and IV, was better than the NFL brand when I was a kid).
Still, it’s just a trophy. The players, coaches (and some very knowledgeable fans) know the truth.
Taylor has a Superbowl ring and the deciding touchdown from the last game played by an AFL football team.
That’s good enough for me.
OK, Otis Taylor should NOT be in the HOF. I know you said he has better stats than Lynn Swann but here’s what Lynn Swann did in his great career.
Won 4 Super Bowl’s, Part of the 1970’s All-Decade Team., 3 time Pro Bowl & All-Pro selection. Otis Taylor wasn’t on an All-Decade Team and only won 1 Super Bowl and was only in 2 Pro Bowl’s and zero All-Pro selections. Otis Taylor is not one of the greatest WR’s in his era let alone best in history. Also, the HOF is NOT a popularity contest. If it was a lot of guys that are in there would not be in if it were.
EDIT: Also, Lynn Swann would have had better stats but he had to share time with fellow HOF WR John Stallworth.
From NFL fan:
“OK, Otis Taylor should NOT be in the HOF. I know you said he has better stats than Lynn Swann but here’s what Lynn Swann did in his great career.”
“Won 4 Super Bowl’s, Part of the 1970’s All-Decade Team., 3 time Pro Bowl & All-Pro selection. Otis Taylor wasn’t on an All-Decade Team and only won 1 Super Bowl and was only in 2 Pro Bowl’s and zero All-Pro selections. Otis Taylor is not one of the greatest WR’s in his era let alone best in history. Also, the HOF is NOT a popularity contest. If it was a lot of guys that are in there would not be in if it were.”
Ummmmm, Bachslunch: YOU ARE SO MISSED!
Did some checking on Taylor again (with limited time) and here’s what I found out:
Taylor was voted to two FIRST TEAM ALL-PRO honors (in 1966 and 1971) and three Pro-Bowls (1966, 1971 and 1972).
Lynn Swann, despite the noteriety of being on a four-time Superbowl winner, only was selected to first team All-Pro ONCE in his entire career (one less than Taylor) and had the same number of Pro-Bowl selections as Taylor (three).
Swann caught 318 for 5197 (about 16.3 yards per catch) and 51 touchdowns in his first eight years in pro football. Swann’s ninth season was non-productive.
Taylor, despite playing in a time when defensive backs could clutch and grab receivers all over the field while Swann played in a time when defensive backs could only do so in the first five yards, produced superior numbers in HIS first eight years in pro football:
Taylor caught 352 for 6366 (18.2 yards per catch) and 51 touchdowns.
So, even with the rules that hindered receivers of the past, Taylor completely smokes Lynn Swann….(By the numbers).
The Hall of Shame is a popularity contest!
A few things re observations by poster “NFL fan”:
1. if winning four SB rings automatically qualified one for the HoF, Rocky Bleier and Larry Brown would be in. More is needed. And Lynn Swann’s stats, coupled with his short career, are not exactly a strong argument in relation to other receivers in the HoF, something that’s reflected in his not getting in until his 14th try — most of any player. John’s point in comparing Swann’s and Taylor’s first eight seasons is a reasonable one to make as their careers overlap. And Swann was an NFL 1st team all pro selection twice (1975 and 1978, according to Hickok’s site), same as Otis Taylor.
2. if you’re going to argue against Otis Taylor for the HoF, this is absolutely no way to build a case. Taylor played half his career in the 1960s, when no AFL player could make this particular NFL All Decade Team and no AFL player was even eligible for NFL All Pro Teams until after the 1969 merger — and the 1970s, when Taylor was (despite a couple stunningly fine years) on the downhill slope of his career. It’s not surprising he didn’t make either All Decade Team anyway, as his career exactly straddled two decades. Besides, according to Hickok’s site, Taylor was indeed a 1st team NFL All Pro not just once but twice, in 1971 and 1972.
3. any ideas that Swann might have had better stats without Stallworth’s being a teammate are just speculation. What if Gale Sayers had never had knee trouble? Fun to think about, but not exactly something real-world based.
A couple thoughts on John’s more recent posts:
1. it’s risky to compare a potential HoF player to one of the weaker HoF members. And Swann is definitely borderline.
2. Ed Budde would indeed be a reasonable choice for the HoF, but he isn’t in as of now.
3. re this:
Just an FYI that Emmitt Thomas was inducted into the HOF. The reasoning was pretty sound, according to the organization that voted him in: Thomas was “one of the best cornerbacks of his era.”
The HoF just voted him in — no way they’re going to do anything other than say the best possible things about him. Wouldn’t make their choice look good otherwise, so I’m not sure it’s the most unbiased evaluation.
4. Ray Guy is not in the HoF, and whether he belongs has rightly been the subject of serious controversy. Looking at the numbers, it’s easy to wonder whether he should be elected or not (for starters, if one values average yards per punt, note that Guy’s 42.4 is only good for 62nd on the all time list).
Actually Otis Taylor never was an All-Pro selection. He was however an AFL All-Star in 1966. Lynn Swann on the other hand has been to 3 Pro Bowl’s to Otis Taylor’s 2. Lynn Swann was a big part of why the Steelers were the best team of the 1970’s and how they won 4 Super Bowl’s. The same can not be said for Otis Taylor. I hate the fact that people want people in the Hall of Fame that shouldn’t be in. NFL Network recently did a show saying the Top 10 players that are not in the HOF but should. Here is their list from 10 to 1.
10. Ken Anderson
9. Steve Tasker
8. Alex Karras
7. Ricky Watters
6. Ken Stabler
5. Bob Hayes
4. Jim Marshall
3. Cris Carter
2. Derrick Thomas
1. Jerry Kramer
Out of that list the only people that really should go in are Derrick Thomas and Cris Carter. Jerry Kramer, Jim Marshall, and Bob Hayes are maybe’s. I just think that the Pro Football Hall of Fame is for the greats only.
Warren Wells needs to be considered for the Hall of Fame, too. His statistics are robust!
Warren Wells? Seriously? He only played 5 years total, with three of them being very good. His lifetime stats are anything but “robust.” If Sterling Sharpe can’t get in the HoF with his excellent short career, I can’t see Wells making it under any circumstances.
The claim that Otis Taylor was never a 1st team all pro selection is simply false. In 1971, Taylor was named 1st team all-NFL by AP, NEA, Pro Football Writers, and Pro Football Weekly. In 1972, he was named 1st team all-NFL by Pro Football Writers. That’s the two years mentioned above in my earlier post. These particulars can be confirmed at Taylor’s entry on the pro-football-reference.com website, and corroborates information at Hickok’s website. And Taylor made the AFL’s version of the Pro Bowl in 1966, as well as two Pro Bowls after the AFL-NFL merger in 1971 and 1972. That comes to a total of 3 such games, same as Lynn Swann.
As for this statement:
“Lynn Swann was a big part of why the Steelers were the best team of the 1970’s and how they won 4 Super Bowl’s. The same can not be said for Otis Taylor.”
I’d like to see tangible justification as to why this is the case. And I’d wonder if such an argument should among other things weigh the relative contributions of different players on the various teams in relation to Swann and Taylor, plus the various roles Swann and Taylor played for their respective offenses.
Re this observation by poster “NFL fan:”
“I hate the fact that people want people in the Hall of Fame that shouldn’t be in.”
I have to agree. But I’d like to see good arguments that use facts in context for this, comparing the general standards that seem to get some players in and exclude others. So how do we decide?
One good yardstick might be to look at stats we have in context to other contemporaries at the time. For those without stats for reference (and to an extent for those for whom we do), look at such things as 1st team all pro selections, pro bowl selections, all decade team selections, and if you have it, film for study. It would also be good to know approximately how many players at each position by decade tend to get in. And it would also be good to know if someone seems to be getting unfairly excluded when their credentials would seem to match up well with several other players at their position for their time period or nearby. If carefully considered, comparing players across eras might provide limited insight.
I’ll agree that the NFL Network’s list is not a very good one. Cris Carter has had only *one* HoF shot so far, for heaven’s sake, and Derrick Thomas has only had four. Neither is being unreasonably denied so far, and chances are excellent both will get in within a few years. In Thomas’s case, it’s not at all unreasonable to make him wait, as he has a “1st team all pro/pro bowl” profile of 2/9 (consider that Chris Hanburger and Maxie Baughan have never been voted in at all with profiles of 3/9!) and Thomas’s reputation was that of a terrific pass rusher who was weak against the run and in pass coverage; note that HoF selectors tend to like LBs with more complete skills. As for Carter, the list of WRs voted in on their first year of eligibility is very short: Steve Largent, Ray Berry, Lance Alworth, and Paul Warfield. That’s it.
Besides Thomas and Carter, I can see a HoF case made for Ken Anderson, maybe Jerry Kramer or Bob Hayes (or if you’re OK with special teamers, Steve Tasker, which is controversial). I don’t see good cases at all for Jim Marshall, Ken Stabler, Alex Karras, or Rickey Watters. Cases can be made against all eight of them, of course, but may be toughest to make on a stats basis against Anderson.
I agree with your last post. Also, the senior selection commitee should be nominating two senior canidates for HOF consideration soon. Remember, senior candidates are people who have been retired for 25+ years and have been eligible for the HOF for 20+ years. Who do you think should be nominated? I’m thinking L.C. Greenwood and Jerry Kramer would be good choices. Other ideas are Bob Hayes, Randy Gradishar, Marshall Goldberg etc. It will be interesting to see who they choose.
For seniors nominations, here’s some suggestions I could get behind to varying degrees. List is not necessarily complete. Barring a last year eligible miracle, expect Robert Brazile and Harold Carmichael to be added to this list:
END (pre 1950): Lavie Dilweg
BACK (pre 1950): Verne Lewellen
LINEMEN (pre 1950): Duke Slater, Al Wistert, Riley Matheson
CENTER: Mick Tingelhoff
GUARD: Ed Budde, Walt Sweeney, Dick Stanfel, Jerry Kramer
OFFENSIVE TACKLE: Jim Tyrer
WIDE RECEIVERS: Billy Wilson, Bill Howton, Drew Pearson, Bob Hayes, Otis Taylor
TIGHT ENDS: Jerry Smith, Pete Retzlaff
RUNNING BACKS: Floyd Little
DEFENSIVE LINEMEN: Gene Brito, Claude Humphrey, L.C. Greenwood
LINEBACKERS: Chuck Howley, Maxie Baughan, Chris Hanburger, Les Richter, Randy Gradishar, Tommy Nobis, Joe Fortunato, Dave Robinson
DEFENSIVE BACKS: Abe Woodson, Cliff Harris, Jim Patton, Bobby Dillon, Jack Butler, Johnny Robinson, Lemar Parrish
KICKERS/PUNTERS: Tommy Davis
Am not supportive of Marshall Goldberg for reasons outlined above in detail.
What order should they be nominated? Good question. Perhaps priority should go to the oldest living players (Wistert for one example), or the players who have been waiting the longest (Dilweg, Slater, Lewellen).
Has anyone ever top the 26.8 average in one year; the 1260 yards in one year or the 23.1 average? Isn’t is true that no one’s yearly stats have exceeded WW even after 38 years? If wrong, please correct. re: wide receivers only
Corrections: Has anyone ever topped the 26.8 average in one year; the 1260 yards in one year or the 23.1 average? Isn’t it true that no one’s yearly stats have exceeded WW even after 38 years? If wrong, please correct. re: wide receivers only
Questions from young people:
1. Does career length have positive or negative impact on a player’s yearly performance.
2. If a player reaches his peak in one year and that peak never exceeds another player’s, does it mean that the one with a maximum be considered for recognition and honor for his performance on the field in a given year?
3. If a player has a longer career, then he certainly has more opportunities to top the average of a player from another era. If no one ever does so in 38 years, doesn’t it suggest that the player holding a rank of no. 1 should be considered and recognized for his outstanding performance.
4. Just to say that a player is worthy of the HOF is not enough. People need to look at and understand the data on the performance of players and use this empirical data to make choices and decisions. Politics, publicity, impressions—-they are not enough.
5. If a player had a 14 game season and another player has a 16 or 17 game season, does that mean the older player had fewer opportunities to reach a maximum in yardage, yet did so in a shorter period of time.
THINK ABOUT IT!
6. Research needs to be done to establish which older players have longstanding records that the younger one still have not been exceeded. Think!
http://www.contemporarycollegealgebra.org/newsletters/84Sep08.html#5
See related article published n Vision-Potential, a newsletter supported by NSF and USMA. Students compare two wide receivers.
Look, poster “one who studies,” it takes more than 3 good years to get into the HoF when you have as short a career as Warren Wells had. You might seriously consider studying who gets into the HoF and why. Note that there’s no precedent for a football player active since 1950 to have gotten voted in with 5 total years in a career and 3 of them at a good level. Peaks this short combined with careers this short just don’t cut it with the voters.
You might as well argue for John Paciorek for the baseball HoF (lifetime numbers: 1 game, 3 AB, 4 runs, 3 hits, 3 RBI, 2 BB, 1.000 in BA and OBP and SLG) — darned fine numbers for one game, but way too short on longevity.