I don't know the stats for when Swann missed games, but they did better with Bradshaw out of the lineup than when he was in it. If you have any evidence that the Steelers needed either Bradshaw or Swann beyond your "eye test", then by all means share it. But in any event, picking two players off the roster and claiming they were needed is still a far cry from demonstrating that they belong in the HOF. I have no doubt that Chuck Noll was happy with all his HOFers, and with an equal number of non HOFers who also have the same number of rings as Bradshaw and Swann. The Steelers were a great team, on that point there is no debate. But that makes every single player on the team a HOFer if that's all there is to it. Why are the QB and a WR HOFers when their stats are so pedestrian, and at least in Bradshaw's case, the team won damn near every game he sat out?
Pretend that the Steelers defense absolutely sucked, I mean historical suckiness; humor me, and just pretend that they did. In this world, the Steelers never go to the playoffs and obviously never win a "ring". From within that world, make an argument that Bradshaw and Swann are HOFers. Hand to God, I will respect anyone who is willing to even try to make that argument. Because for the life of me I can't even imagine how to construct that argument, but if that argument can't be made then the player in question is absolutely, 100%, not a HOFer. Ditto for defenders for teams with historically sucky offenses.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Hey Dallas, for maybe a better Swan vs. Shofner comparison try Gary Collins. His numbers are comparable and in some ways better. But Swan still belongs in the HOF.
IMHO, the eye test that I'm referring to is like this and of course this is only my opinion, so take it for what it's worth. If I had to pay $100 to see only one player play in person for the last time, Swann and Bradshaw would be up there for sure, including most of the current and future Hall-of-Famers. I'm not paying $100 let alone $2 to specifically see Edelman play. Lol That's the only reason I even posted anything. We have someone mentioning Edelman to be in the HOF and someone doubting Bradshaw and Swann being in the HOF? That just seems like cooky talk. Obviously, I don't think anyone is going to change your mind with any statistic. You would have to just be able to see it, and I don't believe you'll ever want to see it. But that's ok, though. It doesn't matter to me if you think Bradshaw and Swann are overrated. However, If you're going to say that the Steelers won games without Bradshaw and Swann, then why didn't the Steelers just get rid of them or even draft them? or just Trade them for amazing value since every other team was seeing them as game changing players. Run with Joe Gilliam, Terry Hanratty, Mike Kruczek at quarterback, along with Ron Shanklin, Frank Lewis at wide receiver. They still would have won 4 super bowls I would imagine because of their defense. Full disclosure, I grew up in Pittsburgh from 1975 to about 1983 and have seen most documentaries about the Steelers during the time that these guys were playing. Watched "A football life" of these players. Heard what their teammates and other opposing players said about Bradshaw and Swann. How integral they were for the Steelers to win 4 super bowls. You can't put a value on that or statistic on that. That's all I'm saying. But good health to you and keep pounding!
@coolstanley said:
I guess you didnt see my previous post where I proved that some years the Steelers offense were better than the defense.
I did see it. In my post I said I picked a year that I assumed was representative and apparently it wasn't. That doesn't invalidate my argument, but it required that I change it. So I did.
@Maywood said:
Hey Dallas, for maybe a better Swan vs. Shofner comparison try Gary Collins. His numbers are comparable and in some ways better. But Swan still belongs in the HOF.
I picked Shofner because his stats were eerily similar to Swann's and he has been lost to history. I agree Collins was also very comparable, but he was on a good team and I think most people remember him. But clearly, finding comparables for Swann means sifting through non-HOFers, and there are a lot of them; sift through HOFers and it quickly becomes obvious that Swann doesn't belong in that group.
@pengvin67 said:
However, If you're going to say that the Steelers won games without Bradshaw and Swann, then why didn't the Steelers just get rid of them or even draft them? or just Trade them for amazing value since every other team was seeing them as game changing players.
Why not get rid of them? Play nine men on offense? That would be stupid. I'm not saying Bradshaw and Swann didn't belong in the NFL, just that weren't HOF-level players. And you are assuming facts not in evidence that "every other team was seeing them as game changing players". They didn't trade Bradshaw or Swann for "amazing value" because the other teams wouldn't have made those trades.
And the challenge still stands. Anyone who wants to make a case that Swann belongs in the HOF even if he had played for a team with an inept defense has a chance to shine. And maybe even to shut me up. How can everyone pass up that opportunity?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
My reference to Edelman is he had great post season success and that comment was a direct counter point to the argument that Swann came up big in the playoffs
Edelman was a hard nosed gritty player and is loved by every New England fan
Do I think he belongs in the HOF? Not really but I would take him over a lot of receivers that are in the HOF
it's basically a longevity issue for Swann. had he played 5 more productive seasons and equaled John Stallworth, his numbers would have been superior. and no one considers Stallworth to be a fringe famer.
You can't replace those guys with just anyone. That's the whole point of the Hall of Fame. Who are you finding me from their Era that can Replicate Swann's catches and Bradshaw's throws?
@galaxy27 said:
it's basically a longevity issue for Swann. had he played 5 more productive seasons and equaled John Stallworth, his numbers would have been superior. and no one considers Stallworth to be a fringe famer.
That's certainly a big part of it, but it's more than that. Stallworth caught 80 passes one season and 70 or more three times. Swann is 0 and 0 on those measures (so is Del Shofner). Stallworth has a high yardage season of 1,395, and 3 seasons over 1,000. Swann's numbers are 880 and 0 (Del Shofner is 1,181 and 4). Stallworth was the star receiver on the Steelers, Swann was the other guy who benefited from defenses keying on Stallworth. I'll grant that Swann was a better WR than Bradshaw was a QB, but then Toby Harrah was a better third baseman than Steve Sax was a second baseman. Everyone mentioned in that last sentence was a fine player; none were HOFers.
The single only reason that Lynn Swann and Terry Bradshaw are in the HOF is that they were surrounded by players greater than themselves. Absent better teammates there is no reason in the world to believe that either of them would be better remembered today than Del Shofner. I know that, you know that, everyone here knows that. But they have rings!!!!!!! Yeah, they do, and so would Del Shofner had he played on that team.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Football stats are not as valid as baseball hitting stats. Systems and coach's preferences in football can make one players's stats look superior to someone on another team, but that doesn't necessarily mean he actually is a superior player.
Also in football having bid leads can be a detriment to some offensive stats for QB and WR, and on the opposite end of the spectrum, playing on a team with a bad defense can mean a QB or WR will get more opportunities for yds/TD's, and if on a really bad team they can rack up some cheap garbage time yards against prevent defenses.
Agreed, football stats are not as valid as baseball hitting stats. So, let's just ignore all the stats and declare every player on winning teams to be the greatest players and ignore everyone on the losing teams.
Signed,
Everyone here
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I grew up in Southern California surrounded by the cult following of SC football. Lynn Swann was an icon... at least in Southern California... before he was a Steeler. I have always been a die hard Big Ten fan but not credit Swann as being a great athlete and a play maker that would add value to any NFL franchise would just not pass the straight face test.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@coinkat said:
...but not credit Swann as being a great athlete and a play maker that would add value to any NFL franchise would just not pass the straight face test.
Agreed, and you let me know if anyone ever says otherwise and I'll set them straight. Ditto if anyone says the same thing about Darrell Jackson, Al Toon, T.J. Houshmandzadeh, Dwight Clark, Terance Mathis, Carl Pickens, Greg Jennings, Jake Reed,
Chris Burford, Gary Collins, Harold Jackson, Henry Ellard or Del Shofner.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary said:
Agreed, football stats are not as valid as baseball hitting stats. So, let's just ignore all the stats and declare every player on winning teams to be the greatest players and ignore everyone on the losing teams.
Signed,
Everyone here
Yep, kinda like you ignoring all the MVP's, and other awards Swann and Bradshaw won during their careers.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Football stats are not as valid as baseball hitting stats. Systems and coach's preferences in football can make one players's stats look superior to someone on another team, but that doesn't necessarily mean he actually is a superior player.
Stats can be a little misleading in football, sure. But...... 336 catches and 3 Pro Bowls are not a HOF resume. They're just not.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Football stats are not as valid as baseball hitting stats. Systems and coach's preferences in football can make one players's stats look superior to someone on another team, but that doesn't necessarily mean he actually is a superior player.
Stats can be a little misleading in football, sure. But...... 336 catches and 3 Pro Bowls are not a HOF resume. They're just not.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Football stats are not as valid as baseball hitting stats. Systems and coach's preferences in football can make one players's stats look superior to someone on another team, but that doesn't necessarily mean he actually is a superior player.
Stats can be a little misleading in football, sure. But...... 336 catches and 3 Pro Bowls are not a HOF resume. They're just not.
How many wide receivers have 4 rings?
Ah yes, the Trent Dilfer was better than Dan Marino rebuttal.
Did you seriously just give Swann credit as a HOFer because of rings when he had ZERO catches in one of those Super Bowls? Full credit he put up big numbers in two of the other three despite generally not doing much in any of their other playoff games - he had 0, 1 or 2 catches in 7 of his 16 career playoff games.
But, hey, he's got four rings. That clearly means he was a GREAT wide receiver.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Football stats are not as valid as baseball hitting stats. Systems and coach's preferences in football can make one players's stats look superior to someone on another team, but that doesn't necessarily mean he actually is a superior player.
Stats can be a little misleading in football, sure. But...... 336 catches and 3 Pro Bowls are not a HOF resume. They're just not.
How many wide receivers have 4 rings?
Did you seriously just give Swann credit as a HOFer because of rings when he had ZERO catches in one of those Super Bowls? Full credit he put up big numbers in THREE of the other three .
Fixed it for you.
At the time of his retirement from pro football, Swann, held five Super Bowl records, including career receptions, career receiving yards, career touchdown receptions, yards in a game, and the highest punt return average in a game. In 1991 he was named to the NFL's Super Bowl Silver Anniversary Team. He was a rookie in 74 when they played the Vikings in the Super Bowl. That year, he LED THE LEAGUE in punt return yards. Yep he has 4 rings that he earned.
Yep, kinda like you ignoring all the MVP's, and other awards Swann and Bradshaw won during their careers.
I've been here 100 years, I have made countless posts arguing for this or that player being better or worse than some other player, and explaining in ridiculously boring detail how I arrived at my conclusions. And somehow you missed all of it. If I were to rank the keys to properly evaluating players, in any sport, at the top of the list would be this: Ignore awards - think for yourself. The progress people are making in this regard in baseball has been gratifying. But in football - and as proof I offer this thread - the number of people willing to think for themselves is disappointing to the point of being soul-crushing.
So yes, I am ignoring those awards. Proudly. If I ever feel the need to rest my argument on what other people thought, just shoot me. I'd rather be dead than embarrass myself that way.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said:
Football stats are not as valid as baseball hitting stats. Systems and coach's preferences in football can make one players's stats look superior to someone on another team, but that doesn't necessarily mean he actually is a superior player.
Stats can be a little misleading in football, sure. But...... 336 catches and 3 Pro Bowls are not a HOF resume. They're just not.
How many wide receivers have 4 rings?
Did you seriously just give Swann credit as a HOFer because of rings when he had ZERO catches in one of those Super Bowls? Full credit he put up big numbers in THREE of the other three .
Fixed it for you.
At the time of his retirement from pro football, Swann, held five Super Bowl records, including career receptions, career receiving yards, career touchdown receptions, yards in a game, and the highest punt return average in a game. In 1991 he was named to the NFL's Super Bowl Silver Anniversary Team. He was a rookie in 74 when they played the Vikings in the Super Bowl. That year, he LED THE LEAGUE in punt return yards. Yep he has 4 rings that he earned.
Nice try though.
Ah, now it's clear. 5 catches for 79 yards and a TD is "big numbers". In other words, you have low standards. 5/79 & a TD is a nice game but it's definitely not "big numbers".
And I don't care what his totals ended up being since he did nothing in that first Super Bowl. 34 punt return yards and -7 yards offense. That's a terrible day for a wide receiver, rookie or not.
@galaxy27 said:
it's basically a longevity issue for Swann. had he played 5 more productive seasons and equaled John Stallworth, his numbers would have been superior. and no one considers Stallworth to be a fringe famer.
That's certainly a big part of it, but it's more than that. Stallworth caught 80 passes one season and 70 or more three times. Swann is 0 and 0 on those measures (so is Del Shofner). Stallworth has a high yardage season of 1,395, and 3 seasons over 1,000. Swann's numbers are 880 and 0 (Del Shofner is 1,181 and 4). Stallworth was the star receiver on the Steelers, Swann was the other guy who benefited from defenses keying on Stallworth. I'll grant that Swann was a better WR than Bradshaw was a QB, but then Toby Harrah was a better third baseman than Steve Sax was a second baseman. Everyone mentioned in that last sentence was a fine player; none were HOFers.
The single only reason that Lynn Swann and Terry Bradshaw are in the HOF is that they were surrounded by players greater than themselves. Absent better teammates there is no reason in the world to believe that either of them would be better remembered today than Del Shofner. I know that, you know that, everyone here knows that. But they have rings!!!!!!! Yeah, they do, and so would Del Shofner had he played on that team.
i hear you; i don't think he deserves to be in either. for crying out loud the guy isn't even in the top 250 in career receiving yards. was simply saying that if you extrapolate his abridged career by adding a handful of similar seasons production-wise, his case for induction would be greatly fortified. then again, you can say that about a lot of players who are otherwise undeserving. as it stands, the only reason he's in is because of team accomplishments and his performance in Super Bowl X.
i'll never forget him opining about Calvin Johnson a number of years ago, saying he wasn't deserving of a place in the Hall because of his team's lack of success and his inability to lift them. talk about rich, i thought. if Lynn Swann had been on those Detroit teams, the only time someone would remember him is when they opened a pack of 2007 Topps and pulled his $3 rookie card. if Megatron had played on those Steelers champ teams, he would have been a disruptive force the likes of which have never been seen before.
You can't replace those guys with just anyone. That's the whole point of the Hall of Fame. Who are you finding me from their Era that can Replicate Swann's catches and Bradshaw's throws?
I don't care what the numbers say, Swann has hall of fame hands, he excelled in catching uncatchable balls, catches in the corner of the endzone, on the sideline, tight coverage. These are the hands of a hall of fame receiver, screw his numbers.
I'm not saying big stat guys shouldn't be in the hall of fame, they should, I'm just saying so should Swann. When I watch Swann, I see hall of fame level greatness. What the heck more do you want from a receiver, he could do it all. If I were building a team with a pass heavy offense, I would take Swann on my team in an instant, he's not afraid to take the hits, can catch uncatchable balls, make catches on the sidelines, corner of the endzone, deep catches, tight coverage, he can do it all, he's a hall of fame level receiver and he deserves to be recognized as such in my opinion.
#LetsGoSwitzerlandThe Man Who Does Not Read Has No Advantage Over the Man Who Cannot Read. The biggest obstacle to progress is a habit of “buying what we want and begging for what we need.”You get the Freedom you fight for and get the Oppression you deserve.
@Maywood said:
It would seem the objective observers have decided the HOF for Swann is OK, stat guys not so much.
I do not think "objective" means what you think it means.
@doubledragon said:
I don't care what the numbers say, Swann has hall of fame hands, he excelled in catching uncatchable balls, catches in the corner of the endzone, on the sideline, tight coverage. These are the hands of a hall of fame receiver, screw his numbers.
I guarantee you that had Swann played for the Lions you would not think he belonged in the HOF; nobody would. I am skeptical that you would ever have heard of him. Mel Gray played at the same time as Swann, and he was similar to, but better than, Swann. He was on a bad team with a terrible QB, and I'm not sure if you remember him, but he'd have four rings if he'd played for the Steelers.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@coolstanley said:
Anyone can use the 'what if' line
Tom Brady would have zero rings if he were drafted by the Browns.
See how that works?
LOL. Yes, I do see how that works. Do YOU see how that works, and why it's so important? No, I didn't think so. But you have LOTS of company in that respect.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Getting back to Deion, he's always been a fool, he's STILL a fool.
Yes, he was a great cover guy, did he EVER make a tackle? Seems to me a guy who basically ignores part of his job, should keep his yap shut about other players who put out a maximum effort at ALL aspects of the position.
dallas, we haven't had a good debate for a while. You are correct in your thoughts here.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@dallasactuary said:
What do the following people have in common:
A. Del Shofner
B. Dick Butkus
C. dallasactuary
D. Bea Arthur
E. George Brett
.
.
.
.
.
.
They all had more yards from scrimmage than Lynn Swann in Super Bowl IX.
Yep. Real Steelers fans know that they mainly used Swann as a punt returner his rookie season. And he was VERY good at it. He only started in 2 games as a receiver in 74.
So DD, let me see if I can briefly summarize your point.
If Swann plays well, the Steelers win.
If Swann plays worse than Bea Arthur, the Steelers win.
No matter what Swann does, the Steelers win.
Therefore, Swann belongs in the HOF.
I believe your argument applies to each and every player on the Steelers. What you haven't done - what nobody has done - is attempted to make an argument that Lynn Swann, separate from his HOF supporting cast, was a great football player. That's the argument I'm waiting for, not more pictures of Swann playing in Super Bowls that his HOF teammates dragged him to.
Seriously - stop mentioning Super Bowls. Those are MY arguments - that Swann was carried along by a team great enough to make and win Super Bowls over and over again with or without his help. What is YOUR argument? How do you know he was better than Del Shofner or Mel Gray? Again, seriously, pick either one of those two and make an argument that Swann was the better player.
Or make a Bea Arthur joke; just anything but this silly Super Bowl nonsense.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@coolstanley said:
Mel Gray LOL different eras.....ZERO rings.
Different eras? Gray played from 1971 to 1982, and his peak years overlap with the Steelers SB run. He even played in the same Pro-Bowl as Swann twice, without the aid of a time machine. Your lack of knowledge of football is absolutely stunning, and it takes a lot of guts to post publicly on the topic the way you do. And man oh man, you sure did answer my question.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary said:
Ernie Banks was better than Gil McDougald. @coolstanley said:
Ernie Banks LOL different eras.....ZERO rings.
@dallasactuary said:
Juan Marichal was better than Mike Cuellar. @coolstanley said:
Juan Marichal LOL different eras.....ZERO rings.
@dallasactuary said:
Mel Gray was better than Lynn Swann. @coolstanley said:
Mel Gray LOL different eras.....ZERO rings.
Leaving aside the inanity of the "different eras" line of reasoning in this particular exchange, any argument that says any player in any sport drops down the greatest player rankings because he has ZERO rings is a truly terrible argument. It's a terrible argument when applied to No. 1 QBs, and it is an absurdly terrible argument when applied to No. 2 receivers.
Just. Stop.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@perkdog said:
There are two Mel Gray's to be fair. One was mainly a return specialist while the other was the WR, one born in 48 while the other in 61
To be fair, why would anyone think I was talking about the return specialist rather than the WR when I was comparing him to Lynn Swann? Anyone who had heard of Mel Gray (the WR ) wouldn't have done that. And anyone who has never heard of Mel Gray has no business opining on football in the 1970's. Mel Gray wasn't a nobody; he was better than Lynn Swann for goodness sake.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@perkdog said:
There are two Mel Gray's to be fair. One was mainly a return specialist while the other was the WR, one born in 48 while the other in 61
To be fair, why would anyone think I was talking about the return specialist rather than the WR when I was comparing him to Lynn Swann? Anyone who had heard of Mel Gray (the WR ) wouldn't have done that. And anyone who has never heard of Mel Gray has no business opining on football in the 1970's. Mel Gray wasn't a nobody; he was better than Lynn Swann for goodness sake.
Because if someone is arguing that rings is a barometer on how good a player is or was then all.bets are off and anything is possible.
Comments
I don't know the stats for when Swann missed games, but they did better with Bradshaw out of the lineup than when he was in it. If you have any evidence that the Steelers needed either Bradshaw or Swann beyond your "eye test", then by all means share it. But in any event, picking two players off the roster and claiming they were needed is still a far cry from demonstrating that they belong in the HOF. I have no doubt that Chuck Noll was happy with all his HOFers, and with an equal number of non HOFers who also have the same number of rings as Bradshaw and Swann. The Steelers were a great team, on that point there is no debate. But that makes every single player on the team a HOFer if that's all there is to it. Why are the QB and a WR HOFers when their stats are so pedestrian, and at least in Bradshaw's case, the team won damn near every game he sat out?
Pretend that the Steelers defense absolutely sucked, I mean historical suckiness; humor me, and just pretend that they did. In this world, the Steelers never go to the playoffs and obviously never win a "ring". From within that world, make an argument that Bradshaw and Swann are HOFers. Hand to God, I will respect anyone who is willing to even try to make that argument. Because for the life of me I can't even imagine how to construct that argument, but if that argument can't be made then the player in question is absolutely, 100%, not a HOFer. Ditto for defenders for teams with historically sucky offenses.
I guess you didnt see my previous post where I proved that some years the Steelers offense were better than the defense.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Hey Dallas, for maybe a better Swan vs. Shofner comparison try Gary Collins. His numbers are comparable and in some ways better. But Swan still belongs in the HOF.
IMHO, the eye test that I'm referring to is like this and of course this is only my opinion, so take it for what it's worth. If I had to pay $100 to see only one player play in person for the last time, Swann and Bradshaw would be up there for sure, including most of the current and future Hall-of-Famers. I'm not paying $100 let alone $2 to specifically see Edelman play. Lol That's the only reason I even posted anything. We have someone mentioning Edelman to be in the HOF and someone doubting Bradshaw and Swann being in the HOF? That just seems like cooky talk. Obviously, I don't think anyone is going to change your mind with any statistic. You would have to just be able to see it, and I don't believe you'll ever want to see it. But that's ok, though. It doesn't matter to me if you think Bradshaw and Swann are overrated. However, If you're going to say that the Steelers won games without Bradshaw and Swann, then why didn't the Steelers just get rid of them or even draft them? or just Trade them for amazing value since every other team was seeing them as game changing players. Run with Joe Gilliam, Terry Hanratty, Mike Kruczek at quarterback, along with Ron Shanklin, Frank Lewis at wide receiver. They still would have won 4 super bowls I would imagine because of their defense. Full disclosure, I grew up in Pittsburgh from 1975 to about 1983 and have seen most documentaries about the Steelers during the time that these guys were playing. Watched "A football life" of these players. Heard what their teammates and other opposing players said about Bradshaw and Swann. How integral they were for the Steelers to win 4 super bowls. You can't put a value on that or statistic on that. That's all I'm saying. But good health to you and keep pounding!
I did see it. In my post I said I picked a year that I assumed was representative and apparently it wasn't. That doesn't invalidate my argument, but it required that I change it. So I did.
I picked Shofner because his stats were eerily similar to Swann's and he has been lost to history. I agree Collins was also very comparable, but he was on a good team and I think most people remember him. But clearly, finding comparables for Swann means sifting through non-HOFers, and there are a lot of them; sift through HOFers and it quickly becomes obvious that Swann doesn't belong in that group.
Why not get rid of them? Play nine men on offense? That would be stupid. I'm not saying Bradshaw and Swann didn't belong in the NFL, just that weren't HOF-level players. And you are assuming facts not in evidence that "every other team was seeing them as game changing players". They didn't trade Bradshaw or Swann for "amazing value" because the other teams wouldn't have made those trades.
And the challenge still stands. Anyone who wants to make a case that Swann belongs in the HOF even if he had played for a team with an inept defense has a chance to shine. And maybe even to shut me up. How can everyone pass up that opportunity?
My reference to Edelman is he had great post season success and that comment was a direct counter point to the argument that Swann came up big in the playoffs
Edelman was a hard nosed gritty player and is loved by every New England fan
Do I think he belongs in the HOF? Not really but I would take him over a lot of receivers that are in the HOF
it's basically a longevity issue for Swann. had he played 5 more productive seasons and equaled John Stallworth, his numbers would have been superior. and no one considers Stallworth to be a fringe famer.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Listen at 1:10 for Al Davis on Bradshaw.
Noll on Swann.
You can't replace those guys with just anyone. That's the whole point of the Hall of Fame. Who are you finding me from their Era that can Replicate Swann's catches and Bradshaw's throws?
That's certainly a big part of it, but it's more than that. Stallworth caught 80 passes one season and 70 or more three times. Swann is 0 and 0 on those measures (so is Del Shofner). Stallworth has a high yardage season of 1,395, and 3 seasons over 1,000. Swann's numbers are 880 and 0 (Del Shofner is 1,181 and 4). Stallworth was the star receiver on the Steelers, Swann was the other guy who benefited from defenses keying on Stallworth. I'll grant that Swann was a better WR than Bradshaw was a QB, but then Toby Harrah was a better third baseman than Steve Sax was a second baseman. Everyone mentioned in that last sentence was a fine player; none were HOFers.
The single only reason that Lynn Swann and Terry Bradshaw are in the HOF is that they were surrounded by players greater than themselves. Absent better teammates there is no reason in the world to believe that either of them would be better remembered today than Del Shofner. I know that, you know that, everyone here knows that. But they have rings!!!!!!! Yeah, they do, and so would Del Shofner had he played on that team.
Football stats are not as valid as baseball hitting stats. Systems and coach's preferences in football can make one players's stats look superior to someone on another team, but that doesn't necessarily mean he actually is a superior player.
Also in football having bid leads can be a detriment to some offensive stats for QB and WR, and on the opposite end of the spectrum, playing on a team with a bad defense can mean a QB or WR will get more opportunities for yds/TD's, and if on a really bad team they can rack up some cheap garbage time yards against prevent defenses.
Agreed, football stats are not as valid as baseball hitting stats. So, let's just ignore all the stats and declare every player on winning teams to be the greatest players and ignore everyone on the losing teams.
Signed,
Everyone here
I grew up in Southern California surrounded by the cult following of SC football. Lynn Swann was an icon... at least in Southern California... before he was a Steeler. I have always been a die hard Big Ten fan but not credit Swann as being a great athlete and a play maker that would add value to any NFL franchise would just not pass the straight face test.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Agreed, and you let me know if anyone ever says otherwise and I'll set them straight. Ditto if anyone says the same thing about Darrell Jackson, Al Toon, T.J. Houshmandzadeh, Dwight Clark, Terance Mathis, Carl Pickens, Greg Jennings, Jake Reed,
Chris Burford, Gary Collins, Harold Jackson, Henry Ellard or Del Shofner.
Yep, kinda like you ignoring all the MVP's, and other awards Swann and Bradshaw won during their careers.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Stats can be a little misleading in football, sure. But...... 336 catches and 3 Pro Bowls are not a HOF resume. They're just not.
How many wide receivers have 4 rings?
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Ah yes, the Trent Dilfer was better than Dan Marino rebuttal.
Did you seriously just give Swann credit as a HOFer because of rings when he had ZERO catches in one of those Super Bowls? Full credit he put up big numbers in two of the other three despite generally not doing much in any of their other playoff games - he had 0, 1 or 2 catches in 7 of his 16 career playoff games.
But, hey, he's got four rings. That clearly means he was a GREAT wide receiver.
Fixed it for you.
At the time of his retirement from pro football, Swann, held five Super Bowl records, including career receptions, career receiving yards, career touchdown receptions, yards in a game, and the highest punt return average in a game. In 1991 he was named to the NFL's Super Bowl Silver Anniversary Team. He was a rookie in 74 when they played the Vikings in the Super Bowl. That year, he LED THE LEAGUE in punt return yards. Yep he has 4 rings that he earned.
Nice try though.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
I'd like to know how a bum like Paul Warfield snuck into the HOF, maybe @dallasactuary can explain it to me.
Why isn't Mac Speedie in the HOF?
I've been here 100 years, I have made countless posts arguing for this or that player being better or worse than some other player, and explaining in ridiculously boring detail how I arrived at my conclusions. And somehow you missed all of it. If I were to rank the keys to properly evaluating players, in any sport, at the top of the list would be this: Ignore awards - think for yourself. The progress people are making in this regard in baseball has been gratifying. But in football - and as proof I offer this thread - the number of people willing to think for themselves is disappointing to the point of being soul-crushing.
So yes, I am ignoring those awards. Proudly. If I ever feel the need to rest my argument on what other people thought, just shoot me. I'd rather be dead than embarrass myself that way.
Ah, now it's clear. 5 catches for 79 yards and a TD is "big numbers". In other words, you have low standards. 5/79 & a TD is a nice game but it's definitely not "big numbers".
And I don't care what his totals ended up being since he did nothing in that first Super Bowl. 34 punt return yards and -7 yards offense. That's a terrible day for a wide receiver, rookie or not.
i hear you; i don't think he deserves to be in either. for crying out loud the guy isn't even in the top 250 in career receiving yards. was simply saying that if you extrapolate his abridged career by adding a handful of similar seasons production-wise, his case for induction would be greatly fortified. then again, you can say that about a lot of players who are otherwise undeserving. as it stands, the only reason he's in is because of team accomplishments and his performance in Super Bowl X.
i'll never forget him opining about Calvin Johnson a number of years ago, saying he wasn't deserving of a place in the Hall because of his team's lack of success and his inability to lift them. talk about rich, i thought. if Lynn Swann had been on those Detroit teams, the only time someone would remember him is when they opened a pack of 2007 Topps and pulled his $3 rookie card. if Megatron had played on those Steelers champ teams, he would have been a disruptive force the likes of which have never been seen before.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Chuck Noll knows
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
See: TROUTY
R.I.P. dallas
I don't care what the numbers say, Swann has hall of fame hands, he excelled in catching uncatchable balls, catches in the corner of the endzone, on the sideline, tight coverage. These are the hands of a hall of fame receiver, screw his numbers.
It would seem the objective observers have decided the HOF for Swann is OK, stat guys not so much.
I'm not saying big stat guys shouldn't be in the hall of fame, they should, I'm just saying so should Swann. When I watch Swann, I see hall of fame level greatness. What the heck more do you want from a receiver, he could do it all. If I were building a team with a pass heavy offense, I would take Swann on my team in an instant, he's not afraid to take the hits, can catch uncatchable balls, make catches on the sidelines, corner of the endzone, deep catches, tight coverage, he can do it all, he's a hall of fame level receiver and he deserves to be recognized as such in my opinion.
Jackie Smith is in the HOF
I guarantee you that had Swann played for the Lions you would not think he belonged in the HOF; nobody would. I am skeptical that you would ever have heard of him. Mel Gray played at the same time as Swann, and he was similar to, but better than, Swann. He was on a bad team with a terrible QB, and I'm not sure if you remember him, but he'd have four rings if he'd played for the Steelers.
Anyone can use the 'what if' line
Tom Brady would have zero rings if he were drafted by the Browns.
See how that works?
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
LOL. Yes, I do see how that works. Do YOU see how that works, and why it's so important? No, I didn't think so. But you have LOTS of company in that respect.
Getting back to Deion, he's always been a fool, he's STILL a fool.
Yes, he was a great cover guy, did he EVER make a tackle? Seems to me a guy who basically ignores part of his job, should keep his yap shut about other players who put out a maximum effort at ALL aspects of the position.
dallas, we haven't had a good debate for a while. You are correct in your thoughts here.
>
>
>
This.
What do the following people have in common:
A. Del Shofner
B. Dick Butkus
C. dallasactuary
D. Bea Arthur
.
.
.
.
.
.
They all had more yards from scrimmage than Lynn Swann in Super Bowl IX.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
The other three super bowls certainly were a different story, weren't they?
Yep. Real Steelers fans know that they mainly used Swann as a punt returner his rookie season. And he was VERY good at it. He only started in 2 games as a receiver in 74.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
So DD, let me see if I can briefly summarize your point.
If Swann plays well, the Steelers win.
If Swann plays worse than Bea Arthur, the Steelers win.
No matter what Swann does, the Steelers win.
Therefore, Swann belongs in the HOF.
I believe your argument applies to each and every player on the Steelers. What you haven't done - what nobody has done - is attempted to make an argument that Lynn Swann, separate from his HOF supporting cast, was a great football player. That's the argument I'm waiting for, not more pictures of Swann playing in Super Bowls that his HOF teammates dragged him to.
Seriously - stop mentioning Super Bowls. Those are MY arguments - that Swann was carried along by a team great enough to make and win Super Bowls over and over again with or without his help. What is YOUR argument? How do you know he was better than Del Shofner or Mel Gray? Again, seriously, pick either one of those two and make an argument that Swann was the better player.
Or make a Bea Arthur joke; just anything but this silly Super Bowl nonsense.
You do realize that some of those highlights that DD posted were NOT in the Super Bowl
The next thing Dallas will say is all those great acrobatic catches were against weak defenses lol.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
And the next think you'll tell me is that Lynn Swann made more great acrobatic catches than Mel Gray.
Actually I'm not stupid enough to say what you said I'd say. Can I say the same thing about you and what I said you'd say? I'm truly curious.
Mel Gray LOL different eras.....ZERO rings.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Different eras? Gray played from 1971 to 1982, and his peak years overlap with the Steelers SB run. He even played in the same Pro-Bowl as Swann twice, without the aid of a time machine. Your lack of knowledge of football is absolutely stunning, and it takes a lot of guts to post publicly on the topic the way you do. And man oh man, you sure did answer my question.
Different eras? Swann's entire career overlapped Gray's.
There are two Mel Gray's to be fair. One was mainly a return specialist while the other was the WR, one born in 48 while the other in 61
Leaving aside the inanity of the "different eras" line of reasoning in this particular exchange, any argument that says any player in any sport drops down the greatest player rankings because he has ZERO rings is a truly terrible argument. It's a terrible argument when applied to No. 1 QBs, and it is an absurdly terrible argument when applied to No. 2 receivers.
Just. Stop.
To be fair, why would anyone think I was talking about the return specialist rather than the WR when I was comparing him to Lynn Swann? Anyone who had heard of Mel Gray (the WR ) wouldn't have done that. And anyone who has never heard of Mel Gray has no business opining on football in the 1970's. Mel Gray wasn't a nobody; he was better than Lynn Swann for goodness sake.
I'll take Swann over Gray on my team any day of the week.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Which one? The one from the different era who returned kicks or the WR you had to look up?
Now, make my day. Tell me you want Gerry Mullins (4 rings!) on your team over Conrad Dobler (ZERO rings!). I'll even give you time to look them up.
Because if someone is arguing that rings is a barometer on how good a player is or was then all.bets are off and anything is possible.