WR's Set Addition (Charley Taylor)

shagrotn77

Hey guys. I requested that Charley Taylor be added to the WR's set. I really think he belongs, especially when you compare his stats with Paul Warfield (most notably receptions), who played the same exact years as Taylor:

Taylor 1964-1977 8 Pro Bowls 165 Games 649 Receptions 9,110 Yards 79 TDs
Warfield 1964-1977 8 Pro Bowls 157 Games 427 Receptions 8,565 Yards 85 TDs

Taylor finished top 9 in receptions 9 times, and was first or second four times. He's a second-ballot HOF'er, so I can't see a good reason to keep him out of the WR's set. I'm totally not for watering down the All-Time sets (I learned that lesson after Harold Jackson , but to me this is correcting an oversight, as opposed to watering down the set.

Lastly, yes I just picked up a Taylor, and NO, I did not make this request because of that. I just wanted to wait until I had one already to do so.

Thanks,
Shag

gregm13

Fine w/ me....although now I don't currently have the card yet

Greg M.

shagrotn77

Forgot to mention that Taylor was 6th in the league in rushing as a rookie, before they converted him to a receiver, and that Roger Wehrli called him the meanest WR he ever played against. High praise from a fellow HOF'er.

JasP24

I voted YES on this request.

I don't think it was necessarily a past oversight, rather that Taylor was actually only a 6 time Pro Bowl WR. His first 2 Pro Bowls he was chosen as a RB. His other "cons" are that he only had one 1,000 yard season in his career and only played in one Super Bowl (which he was on the losing team) and he caught 2 passes for 20 yards in that game. Lastly, he was chosen as a First Team All-Pro just once in his 14 year career. Paul Warfield mentioned above, was selected as a First Team All-Pro 4 times while in direct competition to Taylor. Warfield was clearly the more feared and more dominant of these 2 players during those years.

The biggest difference between Warfield and Taylor? Warfield had a career 20.1 YPC while Taylor had a 14.0. So, if I was voting to add Taylor based on a comparison to Warfield, I would have voted NO.

The biggest "pro" for Taylor? He retired the All-Time receptions leader. The only other player who retired the all-time career receptions leader who isn't already on the set is Billy Howton. Taylor wasn't the biggest or the fastest guys, but he's one of the best route runners of his day. Guy could get open in almost any situation.

I don't think this will be a slam dunk vote. If I were giving him a percentage of worthiness I'd probably give him a 60%. Based on the fact that we add guys like Irving Fryar based strictly on the numbers, someone like Charley Taylor is more than deserving. I would say the same for any HOF WR who isn't already on the set (except for Wayne Millner..lol)

Dante Lavelli
Tommy McDonald
Bobby Mitchell
Pete Pihos

I think all 4 of these guys should be added as well.
Jason

jradke4

how could one be a HOF at a position and not on the All Time Postion set?? That doesnt make any sense. Wouldn't induction to the HOF make it automatic, since they are being inducted based on the their play at the position.

JasP24

Well, I think you run the risk of diluting the sets. The only one of the position sets that I had a hand in creating was the All-Time Defense set. Obviously, we wanted only the best of the best and not just a roster of every HOF defensive player.

With the position sets, the pool of possibles is a little smaller. At the same time, I don't think all HOFers are created equal. Take WR Wayne Millner for example.

124 catches, 1,578 yds, 12 TDs over a 7 year career. This was before Pro Bowls, but they were chosing All-Pros at the time and Millner was never chosen.

He's in the HOF, but to me, he doesn't equate to being an "All-Time Great". We actually had this debate while back, you can probably find it in the message board archives. We discussed all the current HOFers not on the set(s). I think we ended up adding Marion Motley and Steve Van Buren to the RB set. Can't remember if there were others. Here are the lists of position players NOT on the key card sets, but are in the HOF. I have ranked them in the order I see them as deserving. I would have put Charley Taylor 2nd on the WR list behind Pihos.

WRs--
Pete Pihos--I would vote YES
Dante Lavelli
Tommy McDonald
Bobby Mitchell
Wayne Millner

RBs--
Frank Gifford--I would vote YES
Lenny Moore--I would vote YES
Leroy Kelly--I would vote YES
Hugh McElhenney--I would vote YES
Bronco Nagurski--I would vote YES
Red Grange--I would vote YES
Ernie Nevers
Jim Thorpe
Ollie Matson
Clark Hinkle
Cliff Battles
Ken Strong
John Henry Johnson
Bill Dudley
Tony Canadeo
Charley Trippi
George McAfee
Doak Walker

QBs--
Dutch Clark--I would vote YES
Benny Freidman
Bob Waterfield
Ace Parker

I can tell you that if I ever consider requesting any of these, I WILL POST here first. Waiting until i own a card or voting yes or no because I own or don't own a card is not taking the best interest of the set into consideration. But rather very selfish and/or money related reasons instead...

Jason

shagrotn77

<< <i>how could one be a HOF at a position and not on the All Time Postion set?? That doesnt make any sense. Wouldn't induction to the HOF make it automatic, since they are being inducted based on the their play at the position. >>



I had the same thought at one point, but the sets would be too watered down if every HOF'er was included IMO. But Charley Taylor to me is clearly deserving. I for one am not a big fan of the "All NFL" rankings. I think there was quite a bit of politics that went into them and can point to too many instances where second-team players were slighted. So I judge a player on his stats and what his teammates and, most importantly, opponents said about him.

Here's a little more on CT:

Charles Robert Taylor. . .At retirement, all-time leading receiver with 649 catches for 9,110 yards, 79 TDs. . .Other career stats: 10,803 combined net yards, 90 TDs, 540 points. . .No. 1 draft pick, 1964. . . Rookie of Year running back, 1964. . . Shifted to split end, 1966. . . NFL receiving champion, 1966, 1967. . .Had 50 or more catches seven seasons. . .All NFL once, second-team All-NFL five times. . .Played in eight Pro Bowls. . .Born September 28, 1941, in Grand Prairie, Texas.



<< <i>I can tell you that if I ever consider requesting any of these, I WILL POST here first. Waiting until i own a card or voting yes or no because I own or don't own a card is not taking the best interest of the set into consideration. But rather very selfish and/or money related reasons instead... >>



Yup, voting against a player simply because you don't have the card is wrong. That said, I don't think that is an issue for any of the collectors on the all-time sets as it's a solid bunch of guys. And if you want to make any requests in the future and choose to post here first, that's your prerogative. Different strokes for different folks man. Oh, and you forgot to put "lol" after your latest snide remark.

JasP24

<< <i>
Yup, voting against a player simply because you don't have the card is wrong. That said, I don't think that is an issue for any of the collectors on the all-time sets as it's a solid bunch of guys. And if you want to make any requests in the future and choose to post here first, that's your prerogative. Different strokes for different folks man. Oh, and you forgot to put "lol" after your latest snide remark. >>



Nothing LOL about it...

Most, well all, of the "solid" guys tend to post here when considering a request. Get a consensus from the group of us that post here prior to sending or requesting any names. Personally, I have not requested some players that I thought were deserving based on responses we got from the guys here. You're right, to each his own. Most of us choose fairness and go with the decisions of the group on these sets rather than simply using one opinion. When we helped put together the All-Time Defense set, or the Modern/Senior HOF sets or even the NFL HOF RC sets, we all discussed it here and I submitted the sets based on popular opinion. I could have easily taken the selfish route and requested cards and players of guys that I owned in high grade. But I don't roll like that, never have. Like you say to each his own.

As far as Taylor goes, I also think he is deserving of the set, but he's borderline. Pete Pihos was a more dominant WR in his day.

Jason

JasP24

Pete Pihos began his nine-year National Football League career as a two-way end with the Philadelphia Eagles in 1947. When the platoon system was instituted, his coaches decided to have him concentrated on playing offense.

Then in 1952, the Eagles suddenly found themselves in need of a defensive end. Without a second-thought they called on the versatile Pihos, who not only stepped in, he earned All-NFL honors. Then for the remaining three years of his career, he switched back to offense and led the league in receiving all three seasons.

Pihos was the Eagles third-round draft choice in 1945, but two years of the military service prevented him from joining the team until 1947. One of the truly great iron men of pro football, during his nine seasons of play, he missed just one game.

Immediately after Pete joined the Eagles, the team marched to its first divisional championship. In the playoff game against the Pittsburgh Steelers for the Eastern Division crown, he blocked a punt to set up the first touchdown in the Eagles 21-0 win. Philadelphia won three straight divisional championships and then back-to-back NFL titles by shutout scores. In 1948, the Eagles defeated the Chicago Cardinals 7-0. One year later, Pihos caught a 31-yard touchdown pass in the Eagles 14-0 win over the Los Angeles Rams.

Although Pihos lacked great speed, he was a consistently outstanding pass receiver with sure hands, clever moves, and courage. Any defender who battled Pete for a pass was bound to get the worst of it physically. He played it clean, but very hard and, after he caught a pass, he ran like a bulldozing fullback. Pete led the NFL in receiving from 1953 through 1955 and earned first-team All-Pro or All-League honors six times and was named to six Pro Bowls.

shagrotn77

I'm always up for a strictly football, civil discussion. So why is this so?:



<< <i>Warfield was clearly the more feared and more dominant of these 2 players during those years. The biggest difference between Warfield and Taylor? Warfield had a career 20.1 YPC while Taylor had a 14.0. So, if I was voting to add Taylor based on a comparison to Warfield, I would have voted NO. >>



Warfield had as many as 50 catches in a season just twice, and also only topped the 1,000-yard mark once. Taylor had better than 50 receptions 7 times. Warfield's YPC average was so much higher than Taylor's because he caught quite a few less passes, as in 427-649. That's a huge difference. Me, I place more emphasis on receiving yards, but I know there are quite a few people who think receptions are the more important stat. In receiving yards, Taylor and Warfield were very close statistically. But from a receptions standpoint, Taylor blew Warfield out of the water.

I've been very careful to always make "statistical" comparisons between Taylor and Warfield. I'm not saying that one was better than the other, though I know Warfield is held in higher regard by most. But I also very much disagree with the statement that Warfield was "clearly more dominant and feared". From a statistical standpoint, that can't be justified. Also, we can't fault Taylor for not winning a Super Bowl. One great player does not a great team make, as Barry Sanders is a true testiment to.

JasP24

Yes, he caught quite a few less passes than Taylor. To see why you only need to look at what type of offense their teams were using and how these players were used. You can rarely decipher which players were more dominant by looking only at the stats..Watch the games or at least the highlight films and see which guy consistently garnered double coverage and which guy was a game changer. Paul Warfield played on run heavy teams his entire career. First with the Browns (Jim Brown and Leroy Kelly) and later with the Dolphins (Csonka, Morris, Kiick).

In Warfield's 222 fewer catches, he still had more TD catches than Taylor...This is an ALL-TIME RECEIVER set, not runner or kick returner or anything else. Strictly what the guy did as a receiver. Warfield scored 10 or more TDs in a season 4 times, Taylor just once.

Honestly, I think the comparison is just way off..Its apples and orange. Its Art Monk vs. Jerry Rice..Warfield and Taylor were used in TOTALLY different ways in entirely different offenses. To blame Warfield for a lack of catches while playing for teams that ran the ball twice as much as the passed is just illogical. Warfield didn't have a higher YPC because he caught less passes, its because he caught alot of DEEP passes, whereas Taylor was more of a possession WR who was a great player in his own right, but he was no Paul Warfield. You say you can't fault Taylor for not winning a Super Bowl, yet you want to fault Warfield for not catching as many passes. Even though its inarguable that Warfield did more with the catches he got than Charley Taylor..

Each of these guys played a roll on very good teams of their day. Taylor is a HOF, no argument. He likely does belong on the all-time great WR set, but its debatable. As stated, I would have put Pete Pihos in over Taylor, but not alot of people know about Pihos and more than likely would not vote him to the set. Taylor should be included based on his own merits. To compare him to someone who was BETTER on the field of play as a WR like Warfield lessens his candidacy. This is what happens to Art Monk every year. If the committee were to judge him strictly on his own merits, he would be in the HOF. Unfortunately, comparisons are drawn to other WRs from his era who were better than Monk on the field. Not in accumulating stats, but on the field dominance play-by-play. I've said before, if you watch Redskins games from those years Gary Clark, IMO, was the better WR of the 2. Monk had the longevity necessary for HOF, but had Gary Clark played as long as Monk, he would have been elected a long time ago.

Jason

mikescardcloset

I voted YES for Charley Taylor.

Thanks for the great great info to help me make the decision.