Who are the worst players in the Baseball and/or Football Halls of Fame?

PowderedH2O · January 9, 2011 6:25AM

We've had the debates over and over about whether a particular player deserves to be in. Frequently that discussion comes down to a comparison of said player to other players that are either in/or not in the HOF. So, if you had to make an argument about the ten worst in either the baseball or football Halls, who would they be and why?

I will start with my football picks in no particular order:

Joe Namath - he's in. Theismann and Stabler are not in. OK, he was a big AFL hero in 1969. But, career wise, he's no better than they are.
Lynn Swann - Stats are weak. He played on a team loaded with talent, so he frequently got single coverage. Lots of receivers better that aren't in.
Dick LeBeau - I will bet any good defensive back could rack up INT's playing opposite of Lem Barney and Night Train Lane.
Dave Casper - he's in and Shannon Sharpe is still waiting to get in? Really?
Fred Dean - A mystery. There are 50 guys not in the Hall that I'd rather see in.
Wayne Millner - there are players with as many catches in a season as Millner had in his career.
Red Grange - the Galloping Ghost was a great college player and a big ratings draw. But, he really was an average runner in the NFL.
Paul Hornung - the Lynn Swann of the Packers. He was a really good player. But HOF?
Arnie Weinmeister - Apparently he was really good. But not for very long.
Gale Sayers - OK. I love Gale Sayers. But for him to be in and Terrell Davis to not be in makes no sense to me.

Agree? Disagree? Let's hear what you think?

Sam

Saberman · January 9, 2011 9:14AM

Gale Sayers was a better runner than Davis...by far.

Keep in mind a couple of things....

1) Offense was harder to come by in Sayer's time.

2)It was clear that Sayers speed, elusiveness, and agility were the reasons for his production...and his production had nothing to do with who was on his team, or what type of system he was in.

Wheras, I am not so sure how much Davis's production was directly related to his ability, and how much due to the system or surroundings.

In 1999 Olandis Gary, in 12 games has 1,159 yds, 4.2 YPC, and 7 TD. Davis was only partially playing this year(his first such year after playing full time previously)
In 2000 Mike Anderson, in 12 starts had 1,487 yds, 5.0 YPC, and 15 TD.

You had two guys who had 'Davis' like years when they took over for him when he was hurt.

Blacklabelsociety · January 9, 2011 12:27PM

<< We've had the debates over and over about whether a particular player deserves to be in. Frequently that discussion comes down to a comparison of said player to other players that are either in/or not in the HOF. So, if you had to make an argument about the ten worst in either the baseball or football Halls, who would they be and why?

I will start with my football picks in no particular order:

Joe Namath - he's in. Theismann and Stabler are not in. OK, he was a big AFL hero in 1969. But, career wise, he's no better than they are.
Lynn Swann - Stats are weak. He played on a team loaded with talent, so he frequently got single coverage. Lots of receivers better that aren't in.
>>

His overall stats are not too weak. Swann was also a superb punt returner. And no one in the history of the game made more bigger catches in the post-season than Lynn Swann. He made NFL networks top 10 steelers of all-time. John Stallworth(another HOF'er) did not make the list.

CEOBIDMC · January 9, 2011 12:30PM

different eras , different types of offense, different styles of football being played.

Connecticoin · January 9, 2011 9:45PM

Catfish Hunter

PowderedH2O · January 10, 2011 2:10AM

Catfish was one of the ones I would think of as well. I love the guy, but his stats don't exactly dwarf any of the other HOFers.

PSASAP · January 10, 2011 3:02PM

Catfish Hunter's career was cut short due to illness and injury, but he was clearly one of the best pitchers of his generation. He was the ace
of a staff that won three World Series in a row, and he played big in big games.

grote15 · January 10, 2011 3:36PM

Jim Rice

Tabe · January 10, 2011 4:13PM

<< Catfish was one of the ones I would think of as well. I love the guy, but his stats don't exactly dwarf any of the other HOFers. >>

8-time All-Star, won a Cy Young, top 10 MVP twice, 5 straight 20-win seasons. I'll give you "not the best HOF'er" but WORST? C'mon.

As for Lynn Swann, the guy had 336 catches in his career - 2 per game. I realize Pittsburgh was a running team they were still completing 12-18 passes a game. And Swann was getting *2* of those. As for him being a "superb punt returner" - maybe he was but he only really did it for one year. He had 61 returns in his entire career and 41 of those were in one season. So that doesn't add to his candidacy.

Let's be honest, he got in because he was on those Steelers teams not because he was an all-time great. He's the NFL's version of any number of Veteran's Committee selections in MLB.

Tabe

Blacklabelsociety · January 10, 2011 5:31PM

<< 

<< 

Let's be honest, he got in because he was on those Steelers teams not because he was an all-time great. He's the NFL's version of any number of Veteran's Committee selections in MLB.

Tabe >>

Fail. Howard cosell said in 1979 that swann was the best receiver in the NFL. 4 RINGS. SUPER BOWL MVP. More big catches than any other player in post season history.,= HOF'er.

Saberman · January 10, 2011 10:03PM

Tabe, keep in mind that the question is looking for a player who is the worst in the hall of fame. Cy Young and MVP voting do nothing in determining that...because we know who did the voting for those. I recognize that people use those votes as some criteria for electing a member(which also happens to be one of the reasons why you get bad selections based on those things).

So really an MVP or CY Young placement isn't a descriptor of Catfish Hunter's ability...but rather a descriptor of the perceptions of writers. It is measuring the writers' perceptions, not the player's ability.

Writers are NOT good at analyzing baseball players...only good at creating sentences and creating/reporting stories.

Catfish Hunter in some ways is the Jim Rice of pitchers. He got a lot of wins because he was on the best teams. He held his ERA down because he pitched in the best pitchers park in the league.

Mickey71 · January 11, 2011 2:56AM

Football is the hardest one to answer. Comparing different eras in football is impossible. I'm a huge 70's Steeler fan and would have to ask...Why did Swann get so few catches and yards? I'm sure he got a serious boost for the Hall from being on those great teams.

bking · January 11, 2011 3:04AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

Let's be honest, he got in because he was on those Steelers teams not because he was an all-time great. He's the NFL's version of any number of Veteran's Committee selections in MLB.

Tabe >>

Fail. Howard cosell said in 1979 that swann was the best receiver in the NFL. 4 RINGS. SUPER BOWL MVP. More big catches than any other player in post season history.,= HOF'er. >>

>>

So, if David Tyree's helmet catches a couple more TD's on the big stage, he's a HOFer??

Seriously, when you compare the number of HOFers from the 1970's Steelers and the 1970's Cowboys, it's clear that winning those Super Bowls was HEAVILY weighted. A circus catch here or there, and the tables could have turned in each of those matchups.

stown · January 11, 2011 3:28AM

<< 

<< Let's be honest, he got in because he was on those Steelers teams not because he was an all-time great. He's the NFL's version of any number of Veteran's Committee selections in MLB.

Tabe >>

Fail. Howard cosell said in 1979 that swann was the best receiver in the NFL. 4 RINGS. SUPER BOWL MVP. More big catches than any other player in post season history.,= HOF'er. >>

So that's the HOF criteria?

Watch out, Canton, here comes Larry Brown!

PowderedH2O · January 11, 2011 6:31AM

Jim Rice is certainly in the bottom half, but I don't know about the bottom ten. I'm gonna go with Rick Ferrell amongst those that have complete stats (Candy Cummings notwithstanding). As many arguments as we have had about Rice, I would guess that most teams would pick Rice to have on their team over Ferrell. From what I can see, Ferrell was a good defensive catcher, but was no Johnny Bench. Offensively, he was about as good as Jim Sundberg. Actually, Sundberg was probably a superior defensive catcher to Ferrell. Maybe Sundberg should have gone in instead. Rice was at least a really good hitter. We have established that he wasn't quite as feared as was once thought, but he was at least a good hitter at worst. Ferrell couldn't even say that. He did walk a lot, so his OBP is good. But he played in the greatest offensive era in history, so he only finished in the top ten in OBP once. The baseball writers voted Ferrell less than 1%. They probably got it right on this one. What was the Veterans Committee thinking?

jaxxr · January 11, 2011 7:12AM

FB, due to rule changes, roster size expansion, vast changes in style, etc., is very difficult to assess,
thus I cant really speculate upon who is the most undeserving for a Hall of Fame selection.

Baseball is almost relatively stable throughout its long history,
so despite differing views, and weights of importance given to various stats and records, and with respect for personal opinions,

Position player = Tommy McCarthy OF
He was chosen as a player, despite his career OPS + of 102, was considered an above average defender with a very good arm.
Once led the league in steals, so likely a good baserunner as well.

Pitcher = Jesse Haines SP
He finished with an ERA of 3.64, a fairly unimpressive 208 wins, and perhaps the poorest ERA + of any HOF member, a 109.
Jesse did win 20 games 3 times and did lead the league in CG once, but never in a "Triple Crown" stat.

Always a bit subjective , but Rick Ferrell C, Chick Hafey OF, and Herb Pennock SP were strongly considered.

Brian48 · January 11, 2011 7:26AM

Tony Perez
Don Sutton

Tabe · January 11, 2011 7:29AM

<< Fail. Howard cosell said in 1979 that swann was the best receiver in the NFL. 4 RINGS. SUPER BOWL MVP. More big catches than any other player in post season history.,= HOF'er. >>

So he belongs in the HOF because an idiot thought he was the best in the NFL? He was a Super Bowl MVP but also had a Super Bowl where had 0 catches and -7 yards rushing. Yep, he had some big Super Bowls. But, the fact remains, he averaged 2.9 catches a game. And, as pointed out, it's not like the Steelers were completing 4 passes per game.

Tabe

otwcards · January 11, 2011 12:07PM

Bill Mazeroski...

Blacklabelsociety · January 11, 2011 1:43PM

<< 

<< Fail. Howard cosell said in 1979 that swann was the best receiver in the NFL. 4 RINGS. SUPER BOWL MVP. More big catches than any other player in post season history.,= HOF'er. >>

So he belongs in the HOF because an idiot thought he was the best in the NFL? He was a Super Bowl MVP but also had a Super Bowl where had 0 catches and -7 yards rushing. Yep, he had some big Super Bowls. But, the fact remains, he averaged 2.9 catches a game. And, as pointed out, it's not like the Steelers were completing 4 passes per game.

Tabe >>

The steelers didnt run a west coast like offense. He's in the hall for a reason. Its a honor to be mentioned in the top 10 steelers of all-time. Many hof steelers did not make the list. NFL network said he made the list mostly because of his post-season record.

catches...47
yards......907
ave.........19.3
td's.........9

bking · January 11, 2011 1:59PM

<< 

<< 

<< Fail. Howard cosell said in 1979 that swann was the best receiver in the NFL. 4 RINGS. SUPER BOWL MVP. More big catches than any other player in post season history.,= HOF'er. >>

So he belongs in the HOF because an idiot thought he was the best in the NFL? He was a Super Bowl MVP but also had a Super Bowl where had 0 catches and -7 yards rushing. Yep, he had some big Super Bowls. But, the fact remains, he averaged 2.9 catches a game. And, as pointed out, it's not like the Steelers were completing 4 passes per game.

Tabe >>

The steelers didnt run a west coast like offense. He's in the hall for a reason. Its a honor to be mentioned in the top 10 steelers of all-time. Many hof steelers did not make the list. NFL network said he made the list mostly because of his post-season record.

catches...47
yards......907
ave.........19.3
td's.........9 >>

wow 47 catches in 16 postseason games.. games in which his team completed 238 passes. 1/5 of the available catches gets him all this postseason love.... Face it, he's in for two catches - one against OAK and one against DAL. He's Roger Maris - in for a seminal event, not a career.

Meanwhile, Drew Pearson had 67 postseason catches for 1105 yds, 8 TDs and a 16.5 avg and can't get a sniff.....

Blacklabelsociety · January 11, 2011 2:24PM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< Fail. Howard cosell said in 1979 that swann was the best receiver in the NFL. 4 RINGS. SUPER BOWL MVP. More big catches than any other player in post season history.,= HOF'er. >>

So he belongs in the HOF because an idiot thought he was the best in the NFL? He was a Super Bowl MVP but also had a Super Bowl where had 0 catches and -7 yards rushing. Yep, he had some big Super Bowls. But, the fact remains, he averaged 2.9 catches a game. And, as pointed out, it's not like the Steelers were completing 4 passes per game.

Tabe >>

The steelers didnt run a west coast like offense. He's in the hall for a reason. Its a honor to be mentioned in the top 10 steelers of all-time. Many hof steelers did not make the list. NFL network said he made the list mostly because of his post-season record.

catches...47
yards......907
ave.........19.3
td's.........9 >>

wow 47 catches in 16 postseason games.. games in which his team completed 238 passes. 1/5 of the available catches gets him all this postseason love.... Face it, he's in for two catches - one against OAK and one against DAL. He's Roger Maris - in for a seminal event, not a career.

Meanwhile, Drew Pearson had 67 postseason catches for 1105 yds, 8 TDs and a 16.5 avg and can't get a sniff..... >>

I can think of at least 6 or 7 swann catches during the super bowls that they always show on the highlight films. Swann averaged 2.9 catches. 19.3 average. He only had 4 catches when he was the MVP in the super bowl. But they were all big catches. Pearson, by the way made the NFL networks top 10 cowboys of all-time.

dfr52 · January 11, 2011 9:55PM

<< We've had the debates over and over about whether a particular player deserves to be in. Frequently that discussion comes down to a comparison of said player to other players that are either in/or not in the HOF. So, if you had to make an argument about the ten worst in either the baseball or football Halls, who would they be and why?

I will start with my football picks in no particular order:

Joe Namath - he's in. Theismann and Stabler are not in. OK, he was a big AFL hero in 1969. But, career wise, he's no better than they are.
Lynn Swann - Stats are weak. He played on a team loaded with talent, so he frequently got single coverage. Lots of receivers better that aren't in.
Dick LeBeau - I will bet any good defensive back could rack up INT's playing opposite of Lem Barney and Night Train Lane.
Dave Casper - he's in and Shannon Sharpe is still waiting to get in? Really?
Fred Dean - A mystery. There are 50 guys not in the Hall that I'd rather see in.
Wayne Millner - there are players with as many catches in a season as Millner had in his career.
Red Grange - the Galloping Ghost was a great college player and a big ratings draw. But, he really was an average runner in the NFL.
Paul Hornung - the Lynn Swann of the Packers. He was a really good player. But HOF?
Arnie Weinmeister - Apparently he was really good. But not for very long.
Gale Sayers - OK. I love Gale Sayers. But for him to be in and Terrell Davis to not be in makes no sense to me.

Agree? Disagree? Let's hear what you think?

Sam >>

The one I really don't understand is Hornung. Nothing about his career screams great, he was a "really good player" not an elite one.

Dboneesq · January 12, 2011 12:17PM

Took a look at some of the guys in the Baseball HOF. I saw that someone mentioned CANDY CUMMINGS. Honestly, I had to look him up. WOW! He played only TWO years and pitched to a 21-22 record! He supposedly invented the curveball, so I guess that is why he is in.

Here's another guy:

Ray Schalk

His CAREER stats: 11 HRs; 594 RBI; batting average .253.
He only had 1345 hits and in only six years did he have more than ONE hundred hits in a season.

To his credit, he was supposedly, BY FAR, THE BEST defensive catcher of his time. He also played for the 1919 "BLACK" SOX and was one of the few players who "tried" to win. It is said that he knew something was wrong when the pitchers were not throwing the pitches that he called for.

jradke4 · January 12, 2011 1:19PM

<< We've had the debates over and over about whether a particular player deserves to be in. Frequently that discussion comes down to a comparison of said player to other players that are either in/or not in the HOF. So, if you had to make an argument about the ten worst in either the baseball or football Halls, who would they be and why?

I will start with my football picks in no particular order:

Joe Namath - he's in. Theismann and Stabler are not in. OK, he was a big AFL hero in 1969. But, career wise, he's no better than they are.
Lynn Swann - Stats are weak. He played on a team loaded with talent, so he frequently got single coverage. Lots of receivers better that aren't in.
Dick LeBeau - I will bet any good defensive back could rack up INT's playing opposite of Lem Barney and Night Train Lane.
Dave Casper - he's in and Shannon Sharpe is still waiting to get in? Really?
Fred Dean - A mystery. There are 50 guys not in the Hall that I'd rather see in.
Wayne Millner - there are players with as many catches in a season as Millner had in his career.
Red Grange - the Galloping Ghost was a great college player and a big ratings draw. But, he really was an average runner in the NFL.
Paul Hornung - the Lynn Swann of the Packers. He was a really good player. But HOF?
Arnie Weinmeister - Apparently he was really good. But not for very long.
Gale Sayers - OK. I love Gale Sayers. But for him to be in and Terrell Davis to not be in makes no sense to me.

Agree? Disagree? Let's hear what you think?

Sam >>

i would have to agree with others you can compare some of the same eras.

take paul hornung. yes he wasnt jim brown, emmitt smith or payton. but the game has changed. one thing that hasnt is that the team with the most points at the end wins.

hornung averaged 7.4 points scored per game played
brown had 6.41 points scored a game
smith had 4.65 points
payton had 3.95
jerry rice had 4.15
don hutson had 7.09

the only kicker in the HOF had 6.46 points per game played.

what many dont remember (heck i never saw him play myself) was that he was a very complete player. ran, caught, passed and kicked. so on average any game that he missed due to an injury it cost his team 7 points per game.

PowderedH2O · January 12, 2011 2:21PM

One of the things that we can see with Hornung's career that we can't see with many other players is the direct impact of his disappearance. I won't deny that he was a fine player. But when he was suspended for 1963, the Packers went 11-2-1 without him. Hornung's backup Tom Moore got the bulk of Hornung's carries that season and rushed for 658 yards with 6 TD's and a 5.0 yards per carry average. If we were to take that season and place it into Hornung's career as HIS 1963 statistics, it would have been the second best season of his career. His all-time rushing high was just 681 yards, and his best yards per carry was 4.7 over a full season. Moore's receiving out of the backfield would also have been Hornung's third best season ever. So what this tells me is this: The Packers took a run-of-the-mill running back named Tom Moore and had him replace Paul Hornung for a season in the peak of Hornung's career. For that season, Moore put up a season that would have been Hornung's second best season ever. The team rolled to an 11-2-1 record, which was the second best record in the NFL. Hornung never had a 1,000 yards from scrimmage season. That's combined rushing and receiving. The best backs in the league were doing that consistently. Yes, he scored a lot of points. He was a running back on a team that is arguably the greatest team in history. He was also their kicker. He had 190 extra points. He also had 66 field goals (which he hit at a dismal 47.1% over his career). That adds up to 388 points. If you take those away, that 7.4 comes way down to 3.57 per game. I'd give him credit if he was truly an excellent kicker, but only hit over 60% of his field goals one season in his whole career. This tells me that he was a mediocre kicker at best. In 1963, they let Jerry Kramer kick and his field goal percentage was 47.1% (what a coincidence).

Why is Paul Hornung in the HOF? He is the Golden Boy. For whatever reason, he has that charm and charisma that attracts people and makes people like him and perceive him to be greater than he really is. He got selected to the HOF based upon this. He won a Heisman Trophy over Johnny Majors, Tommy McDonald, and Jim Brown because of this. Even in our own little collecting world, there are more people registered with Paul Hornung sets than there are with Jim Taylor sets, even though Taylor more than doubled Hornung's numbers. But the numbers are there to tell us the facts. Hornung was a good player. But he was probably not as good as John David Crow, Rick Casares, Dick Bass, Don Perkins, or a number of other running backs of his time. But, he is the Golden Boy...

dfr52 · January 12, 2011 10:08PM

<< One of the things that we can see with Hornung's career that we can't see with many other players is the direct impact of his disappearance. I won't deny that he was a fine player. But when he was suspended for 1963, the Packers went 11-2-1 without him. Hornung's backup Tom Moore got the bulk of Hornung's carries that season and rushed for 658 yards with 6 TD's and a 5.0 yards per carry average. If we were to take that season and place it into Hornung's career as HIS 1963 statistics, it would have been the second best season of his career. His all-time rushing high was just 681 yards, and his best yards per carry was 4.7 over a full season. Moore's receiving out of the backfield would also have been Hornung's third best season ever. So what this tells me is this: The Packers took a run-of-the-mill running back named Tom Moore and had him replace Paul Hornung for a season in the peak of Hornung's career. For that season, Moore put up a season that would have been Hornung's second best season ever. The team rolled to an 11-2-1 record, which was the second best record in the NFL. Hornung never had a 1,000 yards from scrimmage season. That's combined rushing and receiving. The best backs in the league were doing that consistently. Yes, he scored a lot of points. He was a running back on a team that is arguably the greatest team in history. He was also their kicker. He had 190 extra points. He also had 66 field goals (which he hit at a dismal 47.1% over his career). That adds up to 388 points. If you take those away, that 7.4 comes way down to 3.57 per game. I'd give him credit if he was truly an excellent kicker, but only hit over 60% of his field goals one season in his whole career. This tells me that he was a mediocre kicker at best. In 1963, they let Jerry Kramer kick and his field goal percentage was 47.1% (what a coincidence).

Why is Paul Hornung in the HOF? He is the Golden Boy. For whatever reason, he has that charm and charisma that attracts people and makes people like him and perceive him to be greater than he really is. He got selected to the HOF based upon this. He won a Heisman Trophy over Johnny Majors, Tommy McDonald, and Jim Brown because of this. Even in our own little collecting world, there are more people registered with Paul Hornung sets than there are with Jim Taylor sets, even though Taylor more than doubled Hornung's numbers. But the numbers are there to tell us the facts. Hornung was a good player. But he was probably not as good as John David Crow, Rick Casares, Dick Bass, Don Perkins, or a number of other running backs of his time. But, he is the Golden Boy... >>

I 100% agree, thanks for posting those stats b/c they really do provide proof that Hornung was a good player but not a great one. He probably did make the HOF based on his personality traits, college background, the Packers success, and his perceived ability on the field. Hornung was a well-rounded player but not a superior a rusher, passer, receiver, or kicker. How many other guys in the league were nearly as talenetd in those areas at about the same time?

I find it interesting that Hornung is more popular w/ collectors b/c Taylor was the better back and had a larger part in the Packers success.

cardbender · January 13, 2011 7:55PM

I'm a Packers fan and always thought Horning was a borderline HOF'er too, however......

If you look at his numbers, his best three years were '59-61. Those were 12 game seasons then. He led the NFL in scoring all three years. In 36 games he scored 416 points, or an amazing 11.6 per game. Also during those three years, Hornung threw 5 TD's on halfback options.

He was the NFL's MVP in 1961 the year he scored 146 points. All-NFL in 1960 and '61. He was voted to the NFL's all-time 1960's decade team. His 176 points in season record he set in 1960 stood for over 35 years until broken by L. Tomlinson, despite the expanded schedule from 14 to 16 game seasons. If you went by avg. points per game, Hornung is still the all-time season record holder.

He had a nose for the end zone and he's ranked 2nd all-time in TD's/ per carry, second only to Lenny Moore. Hornung scored 63 TD's in 104 regular season games.

As far as his FG pct. His 47.1 avg is not that far off from the league avg. during his playing career. Also remember, he was not a kicking specialist like say Tommy Davis or Sam Baker. Plus he kicked in poor weather a few games a year. There were no domes back in the 1950's thru the mid '60'.

He is one of only five players to win the Heisman and an NFL MVP trophy. Add in his playoff performances which were stellar, a few NFL championship rings, his Heisman trophy win in '56, College FB HOF, and I feel there's enough there to warrant him being a pro Football HOF member.

My candidates for weakest FB HOF players would include:
W. Milner - gets in on his college career laurels at ND.
Bob St. Clair - tall and solid but no HOF player.
Dick LeBeau - slightly above avg. player but a great asst. coach.
Floyd Little - let's throw in Don Perkins, Chuck Foreman, Larry Brown then too.

Swann - if he's in let's add Cliff Branch, H. Carmichael, Drew Pearson, Art Powell, Lionel Taylor.

Namath, one big game, one big season. Where's Ken Anderson, Brodie, Gabriel, Hadl, Stabler, Simms.

Charlie Joiner- longevity at WR. Never one of the best at his position.

For Baseball : Rizzuto, Mazeroski, Ferrell.

dfr52 · January 13, 2011 9:51PM

<< I'm a Packers fan and always thought Horning was a borderline HOF'er too, however......

If you look at his numbers, his best three years were '59-61. Those were 12 game seasons then. He led the NFL in scoring all three years. In 36 games he scored 416 points, or an amazing 11.6 per game. Also during those three years, Hornung threw 5 TD's on halfback options.

He was the NFL's MVP in 1961 the year he scored 146 points. All-NFL in 1960 and '61. He was voted to the NFL's all-time 1960's decade team. His 176 points in season record he set in 1960 stood for over 35 years until broken by L. Tomlinson, despite the expanded schedule from 14 to 16 game seasons. If you went by avg. points per game, Hornung is still the all-time season record holder.

He had a nose for the end zone and he's ranked 2nd all-time in TD's/ per carry, second only to Lenny Moore. Hornung scored 63 TD's in 104 regular season games.

As far as his FG pct. His 47.1 avg is not that far off from the league avg. during his playing career. Also remember, he was not a kicking specialist like say Tommy Davis or Sam Baker. Plus he kicked in poor weather a few games a year. There were no domes back in the 1950's thru the mid '60'.

He is one of only five players to win the Heisman and an NFL MVP trophy. Add in his playoff performances which were stellar, a few NFL championship rings, his Heisman trophy win in '56, College FB HOF, and I feel there's enough there to warrant him being a pro Football HOF member.

My candidates for weakest FB HOF players would include:
W. Milner - gets in on his college career laurels at ND.
Bob St. Clair - tall and solid but no HOF player.
Dick LeBeau - slightly above avg. player but a great asst. coach.
Floyd Little - let's throw in Don Perkins, Chuck Foreman, Larry Brown then too.

Swann - if he's in let's add Cliff Branch, H. Carmichael, Drew Pearson, Art Powell, Lionel Taylor.

Namath, one big game, one big season. Where's Ken Anderson, Brodie, Gabriel, Hadl, Stabler, Simms.

Charlie Joiner- longevity at WR. Never one of the best at his position.

For Baseball : Rizzuto, Mazeroski, Ferrell. >>

IMO his FG% should be well above the average for his era for it to be considered as criteria for the HOF. Essentially he spent his career stealing TD's from Taylor, who would have scored far more often if Hornung wasn't around.

Saberman · January 13, 2011 10:59PM

Cardbender,

PowderedH20 addressed many of those points above, in regard to his point scoring total.

Take note of the point about the number of extra points, his FG%, and what his replacements did.

PowderedH2O · January 14, 2011 11:19AM

Cardbender, you got me curious about Hornung's MVP season of 1961. So I went and checked it out. He did score a lot of points. Here are the lengths of his touchdowns: 1 ,54,1,8,1,3,1,17,8,34 Hornung scored 10 touchdowns. But four of the ten were 1 yarders. I've got to guess that if Jim Taylor got those carries, he would have been able to score those just as well. But hey, Hornung scored, so I will give him the credit. But the field goals were what amazed me. Here are the lengths of the field goals that he made: 15, 26, 13, 15, 43, 37, 38, 14, 18, 13, 16, 51, 9, 23, 25. So he hit 15 field goals, but 11 of them were from 26 yards or less. This is one of those cases where we look at stats that look impressive on the surface, but without taking them apart. I am guessing that half the guys in pro football with a week of training could hit from 26 yards fairly regularly, even in 1961. And the Packers only played one game below freezing temperatures. Their last two games were at Los Angeles and San Francisco, so the "Frozen Tundra" never came into play. I am not anti-Packer. I actually kinda like them. But if a Packer should have won the MVP in 1961, it should have been Jim Taylor who rushed for 1307 yards at 5.4 yards per carry (compared to 597 at 4.7 for Hornung), 15 touchdowns, and had more yards receiving than Hornung.

I still believe Hornung was a fine player. But when I look at the Hall of Fame, and I see a large number of backs that were superior to him that are not inducted, it makes me wonder.

bigreddog · January 14, 2011 3:34PM

Joe Namath not a HOFer? (what's the world coming too?)

1965 American Football League Rookie of the Year
1968-1969 American Football League MVP
1969 Super Bowl III MVP
1974 NFL Comeback Player of the Year Award

Joe Namath's IMPACT on the game goes far beyond any stats lines

THE HISTORIC DRAFT
Namath was drafted by both the National Football League and the upstart American Football League. The two competing leagues held their respective drafts on the same day—November 28, 1964.
The NFL's St. Louis Cardinals selected Namath 12th overall in their draft, while the Jets selected him with the AFL's first overall pick.[8] He elected to sign with the Jets, who were under the direction of Hall of Fame owner Sonny Werblin, for a salary of $427,000 (a pro football record at the time) and never put on a Cardinals uniform.

4000 YARDS (you want numbers)
Namath was the first quarterback to throw for 4,000 yards during the 14 game 1967 season. This feat was not to be achieved again until Dan Fouts topped 4,000 yards during the 1979 season in a 16 game season. Namath threw for 4,000 yards under old rules that gave much less protection to both the quarterback and recievers.

THE GUARANTEE
The Upset of the MIGHTY NFL Colts in SB III WAS instrumental in gaining respect for the AFL league and its eventual merger with the NFL.

MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL'S INAUGURAL GAME
The head of ABC's televised sports, Roone Arledge, made sure that Monday Night Football's inaugural game would feature JOE Namath and the New York Jets in a game against the Cleveland Browns in Cleveland Municipal Stadium. A record crowd of 85,703 and a huge television audience watched the Jets set a team record for penalties and lose on a late Namath interception.

THE NICKNAMES (Are there any more famous)
Namath's nickname "Broadway Joe" was given him by Sherman Plunkett, a Jets teammate. He is also sometimes called "Joe Willie Namath", a characterization popularized by sportscaster Howard Cosell. He originated the fad of wearing a full-length fur coat on the sidelines, a habit which was adopted by many players after him. The NFL has since outlawed this, requiring all team personnel (players, coaches, athletic trainers, etc...) to wear team apparel issued by the league's athletic supplier on the sidelines. He also stood out from the rest of his Jets teammates by wearing white shoes, rather than the traditional black, a trait that Pittsburgh Steelers defensive end L. C. Greenwood would later emulate when he wore gold shoes. Although not completely banned, the NFL now fines players for not wearing the same colored shoes as the rest of the team.

EVOLVING THE QB POSITION
Namath's play on the field in the years before his knees seriously limited his mobility helped evolve the quarterback position and the NFL style of play from a run oriented ball control game to today's more open passing style. Perhaps the accolades of experts say it best. Hall of Fame coach Bill Walsh stated that Namath was "the most beautiful, accurate, stylish passer with the quickest release I've ever seen." Hall of Fame coach Don Shula stated that Namath was "one of the 3 smartest quarterbacks of all time."

ICON
While his career statistics are not exceptional, Namath was the game's first true media superstar. his fame assured, Namath created new controversy by starring in a succession of commercial advertisements as something of a playboy 'sex symbol', including a commercial for Beautymist pantyhose in 1974 (with Namath wearing them) that for the time were viewed by many as borderline tasteless.
This spawned a new era of television advertising with athlete sex-symbols that continues today.

He also appeared in television advertisements both during and after his playing career, most notably for Noxzema shaving cream (in which he was shaved by a then-unknown Farrah Fawcett and the pantyhose; that contributed to his becoming a pop-culture icon.

Peyton Manning? Tom Brady? or any of the multitude of Modern day QB's, Fine players in the new age WUSSY Rules Football league.
But NEVER in a million years will ANY of them EVER have the game changing and fabled iconic historical Impact Namath did.

Its not just about inflated stats.

Please tell me that was a typo mentioning Terrell Davis in the same breath as Gale Sayers.

Blacklabelsociety · January 14, 2011 5:51PM

Namath no doubt, might be the most popular football player in history.

cardbender · January 14, 2011 7:28PM

Like I said, I felt Hornung was a borderline HOF'er. But I feel he did enough on the field to warrant being elected. Obviously the HOF voters felt the exact same way, as Hornung had to wait 13 years to get elected.

It should be mentioned that he was a QB and RB at Notre Dame but was converted to a fulltime halfback by the Packers. He's the only Heisman winner from a team with a losing record. Notre Dame was 2-8 the year he won the Heisman. It's really kind of hard to believe they'd award the trophy to a player on a losing team, but they did because he dominated in his senior year. He led his team in everything that year.

Hornung's college/pro career compares to other HOF backs Doak Walker and Charlie Trippi. All three were great college players, who won a Heisman (Walker, Hornung), or finished high in the voting (Trippi). All were versatile halfbacks who did a number of things well. The difference in them is Hornung was a member of four NFL Championship teams, Walker two, Trippi one.

As far as comparing him to Jim Taylor, I agree with you. Taylor was the better runner. There's no doubt. If he wasn't he wouldn't have had twice the amount of rushes in his career. I think Taylor's under rated in the history of great NFL running backs.

I'm not sure the length of TD's really matters. How many short TD's did Emmitt Smith, S. Alexander, or LT rush for during their big TD seasons? I don't know the answer to this, but a TD is a TD. Hornung scored 62 in 104 reg. season games. That's not a bad per game average.

Hornung's kicking : in '64, the year after his one year suspension, he was a terrible 12 of 38 in FG's. The next year the Packers got a kicking specialist Don Chandler. If you remove that one really bad year from Hornungs' totals, he was a respectable 54-102 in FG's in his career. Again, all games were played outside on grass. His FG pct. would compare nicely to the league average. During his two big scoring years, 1960-61 he was 30-50 on FG's for .60 pct. I'm not saying he was a great kicker. But he was at least adequate and it proves his versatility as an all-around player.

I don't mind Hornung being in the HOF. If he wasn't there, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it either. But he was a winner.

So what other backs from his era should be in the HOF instead of Hornung?

I can think of a few from the last 50 years I'd like to see get elected but I'd like to hear from others on this thread and their opinions.

cardbender · January 14, 2011 8:05PM

John, I like Namath. Actually as time goes by, I appreciate his accomplishments more and more. The thread asked, name your top ten worst in the HOF. I was trying to go by position.

When you look at the current HOF QB's, I feel Namath is the worst.
Others probably disagree. That's fine. I don't have a problem with Namath being in the Hall, just like Hornung.

What bothers me about Namath is :

173-220 TD to INT's.
A 65.5 career QB rating.
50.1 pct career completion mark.
a .500 record as a starter: 62-63-4
New York Hype.

I realize he was a great down field passer with a strong arm.
So he threw up some INT's and his completion pct. wasn't the greatest. That was the AFL style. Not a big deal really. It was a different game back then, with different rules for WR's. DB's could get away with murder on the receivers back then.

The problem I have is more to do with the New York hype.
Plus really his winning pct. as a starter.

During his three big years, '67-69 his Jets were 29-12-1.
They won one AFL title and one Super Bowl as a huge underdog.
He threw 60 TD's and had 62 INT's. Completed around 51 % of his passes. He had 9888 yards passing or 235 yards per game. His QB rating was around 73.5 for the three years.

He won two AP player of year's and ONE UPI player of the year awards. He was first team ALL-AFL once, in 1968.

Take out his best three years, his W-L record is : 33-51-4 .

Now, just for sake of discussion, let's compare the Raiders Daryle Lamonica during the same three years:

From '67-69, he was 36-4-1 as a starter.
The Raiders won one AFL title too like the Jets but LOST in the Super Bowl to the Packers.
He threw 89 TD's (29 more than Namath in three years!)
had 60 int's (about the same). He also completed 51% of his passes. He had 9777 yards passing, 238 yards per game. About the same as Joe Willie. His QB rating was 80.5.

He won two UPI player of year awards, ONE AP award.
He was first team ALL-AFL twice, in '67 and '69.

So during Namath's three best season's he was no better than the Raiders 'Mad Bomber' Lamonica, other than playing in NYC with all the hype and of course the SB 3 win, which I know is huge.....

Lamonica threw for 29 more TD's and won seven more games during those three years, than Namath. Had a higher QB rating. His team scored more points than the Jets.

Namath was the first pick in the draft in '65, possibly the most coveted college player ever, and the merger happened partly based on the salary the Jets doled out to him and other high profile draft picks.

Lamonica was a four year back up with the Bills, who finally got a chance to be a starter with the Raiders in 1967 and proceeded to put together wins and passing numbers at last equal if not better than HOF'er Joe Namath did during his three finest years.

So the question is, does Namath and Lamonica belong in the Hall?
Or is Namath overrated?

dfr52 · January 15, 2011 12:46AM

<< Joe Namath not a HOFer? (what's the world coming too?)

1965 American Football League Rookie of the Year
1968-1969 American Football League MVP
1969 Super Bowl III MVP
1974 NFL Comeback Player of the Year Award

Joe Namath's IMPACT on the game goes far beyond any stats lines

THE HISTORIC DRAFT
Namath was drafted by both the National Football League and the upstart American Football League. The two competing leagues held their respective drafts on the same day—November 28, 1964.
The NFL's St. Louis Cardinals selected Namath 12th overall in their draft, while the Jets selected him with the AFL's first overall pick.[8] He elected to sign with the Jets, who were under the direction of Hall of Fame owner Sonny Werblin, for a salary of $427,000 (a pro football record at the time) and never put on a Cardinals uniform.

4000 YARDS (you want numbers)
Namath was the first quarterback to throw for 4,000 yards during the 14 game 1967 season. This feat was not to be achieved again until Dan Fouts topped 4,000 yards during the 1979 season in a 16 game season. Namath threw for 4,000 yards under old rules that gave much less protection to both the quarterback and recievers.

THE GUARANTEE
The Upset of the MIGHTY NFL Colts in SB III WAS instrumental in gaining respect for the AFL league and its eventual merger with the NFL.

MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL'S INAUGURAL GAME
The head of ABC's televised sports, Roone Arledge, made sure that Monday Night Football's inaugural game would feature JOE Namath and the New York Jets in a game against the Cleveland Browns in Cleveland Municipal Stadium. A record crowd of 85,703 and a huge television audience watched the Jets set a team record for penalties and lose on a late Namath interception.

THE NICKNAMES (Are there any more famous)
Namath's nickname "Broadway Joe" was given him by Sherman Plunkett, a Jets teammate. He is also sometimes called "Joe Willie Namath", a characterization popularized by sportscaster Howard Cosell. He originated the fad of wearing a full-length fur coat on the sidelines, a habit which was adopted by many players after him. The NFL has since outlawed this, requiring all team personnel (players, coaches, athletic trainers, etc...) to wear team apparel issued by the league's athletic supplier on the sidelines. He also stood out from the rest of his Jets teammates by wearing white shoes, rather than the traditional black, a trait that Pittsburgh Steelers defensive end L. C. Greenwood would later emulate when he wore gold shoes. Although not completely banned, the NFL now fines players for not wearing the same colored shoes as the rest of the team.

EVOLVING THE QB POSITION
Namath's play on the field in the years before his knees seriously limited his mobility helped evolve the quarterback position and the NFL style of play from a run oriented ball control game to today's more open passing style. Perhaps the accolades of experts say it best. Hall of Fame coach Bill Walsh stated that Namath was "the most beautiful, accurate, stylish passer with the quickest release I've ever seen." Hall of Fame coach Don Shula stated that Namath was "one of the 3 smartest quarterbacks of all time."

ICON
While his career statistics are not exceptional, Namath was the game's first true media superstar. his fame assured, Namath created new controversy by starring in a succession of commercial advertisements as something of a playboy 'sex symbol', including a commercial for Beautymist pantyhose in 1974 (with Namath wearing them) that for the time were viewed by many as borderline tasteless.
This spawned a new era of television advertising with athlete sex-symbols that continues today.

He also appeared in television advertisements both during and after his playing career, most notably for Noxzema shaving cream (in which he was shaved by a then-unknown Farrah Fawcett and the pantyhose; that contributed to his becoming a pop-culture icon.

Peyton Manning? Tom Brady? or any of the multitude of Modern day QB's, Fine players in the new age WUSSY Rules Football league.
But NEVER in a million years will ANY of them EVER have the game changing and fabled iconic historical Impact Namath did.

Its not just about inflated stats.

Please tell me that was a typo mentioning Terrell Davis in the same breath as Gale Sayers. >>

Why shouldn't Davis be in the same category as Sayers? Davis wasn't as flashy as Sayers but was just as dominant.

dfr52 · January 15, 2011 12:51AM

<< Like I said, I felt Hornung was a borderline HOF'er. But I feel he did enough on the field to warrant being elected. Obviously the HOF voters felt the exact same way, as Hornung had to wait 13 years to get elected.

It should be mentioned that he was a QB and RB at Notre Dame but was converted to a fulltime halfback by the Packers. He's the only Heisman winner from a team with a losing record. Notre Dame was 2-8 the year he won the Heisman. It's really kind of hard to believe they'd award the trophy to a player on a losing team, but they did because he dominated in his senior year. He led his team in everything that year.

Hornung's college/pro career compares to other HOF backs Doak Walker and Charlie Trippi. All three were great college players, who won a Heisman (Walker, Hornung), or finished high in the voting (Trippi). All were versatile halfbacks who did a number of things well. The difference in them is Hornung was a member of four NFL Championship teams, Walker two, Trippi one.

As far as comparing him to Jim Taylor, I agree with you. Taylor was the better runner. There's no doubt. If he wasn't he wouldn't have had twice the amount of rushes in his career. I think Taylor's under rated in the history of great NFL running backs.

I'm not sure the length of TD's really matters. How many short TD's did Emmitt Smith, S. Alexander, or LT rush for during their big TD seasons? I don't know the answer to this, but a TD is a TD. Hornung scored 62 in 104 reg. season games. That's not a bad per game average.

Hornung's kicking : in '64, the year after his one year suspension, he was a terrible 12 of 38 in FG's. The next year the Packers got a kicking specialist Don Chandler. If you remove that one really bad year from Hornungs' totals, he was a respectable 54-102 in FG's in his career. Again, all games were played outside on grass. His FG pct. would compare nicely to the league average. During his two big scoring years, 1960-61 he was 30-50 on FG's for .60 pct. I'm not saying he was a great kicker. But he was at least adequate and it proves his versatility as an all-around player.

I don't mind Hornung being in the HOF. If he wasn't there, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it either. But he was a winner.

So what other backs from his era should be in the HOF instead of Hornung?

I can think of a few from the last 50 years I'd like to see get elected but I'd like to hear from others on this thread and their opinions. >>

IMO the idea behind the TD length's is that Taylor did most of the work while Hornung got the glory from the scores. Smith, Alexander, and LT weren't sharing carries w/ another back that out performed them though, they were also their team's workhorse back.

bking · January 15, 2011 12:54AM

<< 

Why shouldn't Davis be in the same category as Sayers? Davis wasn't as flashy as Sayers but was just as dominant. >>

Whaaaaa????

Did you SEE Sayers play in his prime?? Davis was a very good back in a perfect system for backs.

MCMLVTopps · January 15, 2011 1:55AM

Perhaps the better thread for the OP might have been "Who are the best player NOT in either HOF.

Gil Hodges comes to mind.

48leafpsa · January 15, 2011 2:09AM

for baseball it's definately Ozzie Smith. sure the guy was tremendous at fielding, 13 gold gloves, but being in the hall of fame should mean that a player was great at all aspects of the game. his offensive stats are a joke:

career .262 hitter, only 1 season at .300 or better (.303 in 1987)
28 career home runs, 793 career rbi
2460 hits in 19 seasons for an average of 155 per year
career obp .337 <- are you kidding me?
hit .236 in 42 postseason games

and Alan Trammell isn't in the hall of fame?
if you're going to put in a guy that was the best fielder at their position, then keith hernandez should be in for his 11 gold gloves at first base

PowderedH2O · January 15, 2011 4:16AM

As far as Joe Namath's impact, I don't question it. But, I am not questioning impact. I am questioning his abilities as a professional football player worthy of the Hall of Fame. I do have statistics, and statistics say that he was average. Yes, he threw for 4,000 yards in 14 games under the old rules. That season, in 14 games, he threw the ball 491 times, which is about 35 times a game. The Jets of 1967 were 8-5-1 and Namath threw more interceptions than touchdowns. That same season, Lamonica threw for 3228 yards, 30 TD's and only 20 interceptions. Which stat line would you rather have?

Namath guaranteed victory in the Super Bowl and delivered. He had an efficient, but unspectacular Super Bowl. He got the MVP. That could have easily been given to Matt Snell. Joe gets credit for the win, but nobody ever talks about the Jets defense. They held the NFL Champion Baltimore Colts who had rolled up over 400 points in 14 games to just 7 points. They forced FIVE Colts turnovers. I just don't see how we rate the quarterback so high when he has a defense that forces five turnovers and gives up seven total points, and has a running back that rushes for 121 yards and a touchdown. Namath did his job. His performance looks a lot like Trent Dilfer's performance in the Super Bowl against the Giants. Why didn't Dilfer get the MVP? Because he wasn't "Broadway Trent".

He had one shining moment. Otherwise, he was a less than .500 quarterback, so calling him a 'winner' is based upon the ONE time that he ever led his team to playoff wins. In no other season did he ever lead his team to a playoff victory. And if we go by stats, he fails. His career Rate+ is 102. The average quarterback is 100. Cardbender compared him to Lamonica. Lamonica's Rate+ for essentially the same league and time period was 110. I can't give him points for being a media darling and being flamboyant. Will someone make the same argument for Chad Ochocinco in 10-15 years?

I can't compare Namath to the old timers from the 20's-40's, but of the guys that have played from the 60's until now, Namath is clearly the worst quarterback enshrined in the Hall of Fame.

dfr52 · January 15, 2011 6:31AM

<< 

<< 

Why shouldn't Davis be in the same category as Sayers? Davis wasn't as flashy as Sayers but was just as dominant. >>

Whaaaaa????

Did you SEE Sayers play in his prime?? Davis was a very good back in a perfect system for backs. >>

I don't give points for style and I believe Sayers is creditied w/ being better than he was b/c he was such an electric runner. Davis played in a great system but took full advantage of it by winning and accomplishing everything he could while he was healthy.

CEOBIDMC · January 15, 2011 6:36AM

If someone like Namath is in the hall its because his personality and popularity transcended his subpar on field performances. He won the superbowl as a huge undergo, made a bold promise and was fortunate that his team played superbly. If Namath loses thats superbowl who among you thinks he would still be in the Hall?

Saberman · January 15, 2011 7:08AM

<< 

<< 

<< 

Why shouldn't Davis be in the same category as Sayers? Davis wasn't as flashy as Sayers but was just as dominant. >>

Whaaaaa????

Did you SEE Sayers play in his prime?? Davis was a very good back in a perfect system for backs. >>

I don't give points for style and I believe Sayers is creditied w/ being better than he was b/c he was such an electric runner. Davis played in a great system but took full advantage of it by winning and accomplishing everything he could while he was healthy. >>

It isn't a matter of style points...it is deducing how good the player is, not the teammates or system.

Sayers' results were due to his ability, in spite of a surrounding cast that was bad.

Wheras Davis's performance was due in large part to his system and surrounding cast, as partly shown by two players(noted above) who did just as well in his stead.

Then you add that Sayers did it in an era where offense was harder to come by.

Here are the two years for the Chicago Bears, yards per carry, in their running game, prior to when Sayers came

3.4 YPC
3.3 YPC

Here were the Bears YPC with Sayers as a full time player(Sayers YPC in paranthesis)
4.4 (5.2)
4.2 (5.4)
3.8 (4.7)
4.8 (6.2)
4.5 (4.4)

Then the next two years for the Chicago Bears when Sayers was hurt nearly all of both seasons, and their running game YPC

3.1
3.9

Their jump in the running game was due CLEARLY to him, and every year he also severely outgained his other backfield mates as well.

Then add that Sayer's, in a tougher offensive time averaged 11.6 yards per reception, and Davis 7.6

Then add that Sayer's was a monster on kickoff returns.

It adds up to Sayers being vastly superior.

PowderedH2O · January 15, 2011 8:52AM

If someone like Namath is in the hall its because his personality and popularity transcended his subpar on field performances. He won the superbowl as a huge undergo, made a bold promise and was fortunate that his team played superbly. If Namath loses thats superbowl who among you thinks he would still be in the Hall?

That is exactly my argument. His personality transcended his subpar performances. If the Jets defense plays like they did in the Heidi game, the Colts probably run up 40 points and Joe Namath never even sniffs the HOF.

bking · January 15, 2011 10:36AM

<< If someone like Namath is in the hall its because his personality and popularity transcended his subpar on field performances. He won the superbowl as a huge undergo, made a bold promise and was fortunate that his team played superbly. If Namath loses thats superbowl who among you thinks he would still be in the Hall?

That is exactly my argument. His personality transcended his subpar performances. If the Jets defense plays like they did in the Heidi game, the Colts probably run up 40 points and Joe Namath never even sniffs the HOF. >>

He's also largely responsible for the AFL even surviving.. He was a media darling, and had the Jets gone down in flames, no way the NFL old guard even listens to merger talk, much less initiates it.

dfr52 · January 15, 2011 12:45PM

<< 

<< 

<< 

<< 

Why shouldn't Davis be in the same category as Sayers? Davis wasn't as flashy as Sayers but was just as dominant. >>

Whaaaaa????

Did you SEE Sayers play in his prime?? Davis was a very good back in a perfect system for backs. >>

I don't give points for style and I believe Sayers is creditied w/ being better than he was b/c he was such an electric runner. Davis played in a great system but took full advantage of it by winning and accomplishing everything he could while he was healthy. >>

It isn't a matter of style points...it is deducing how good the player is, not the teammates or system.

Sayers' results were due to his ability, in spite of a surrounding cast that was bad.

Wheras Davis's performance was due in large part to his system and surrounding cast, as partly shown by two players(noted above) who did just as well in his stead.

Then you add that Sayers did it in an era where offense was harder to come by.

Here are the two years for the Chicago Bears, yards per carry, in their running game, prior to when Sayers came

3.4 YPC
3.3 YPC

Here were the Bears YPC with Sayers as a full time player(Sayers YPC in paranthesis)
4.4 (5.2)
4.2 (5.4)
3.8 (4.7)
4.8 (6.2)
4.5 (4.4)

Then the next two years for the Chicago Bears when Sayers was hurt nearly all of both seasons, and their running game YPC

3.1
3.9

Their jump in the running game was due CLEARLY to him, and every year he also severely outgained his other backfield mates as well.

Then add that Sayer's, in a tougher offensive time averaged 11.6 yards per reception, and Davis 7.6

Then add that Sayer's was a monster on kickoff returns.

It adds up to Sayers being vastly superior. >>

Why should Davis be punished for the talent around him or the system he played in? It wasn't like he was struggling to get 1,000 yards, Davis was dominating at his position. YPC is nice but but I'm more impressed w/ Davis' Super Bowl rings, MVP's, and 2000 rushing yard season.

Tabe · January 15, 2011 5:52PM

<< If someone like Namath is in the hall its because his personality and popularity transcended his subpar on field performances. He won the superbowl as a huge undergo, made a bold promise and was fortunate that his team played superbly. If Namath loses thats superbowl who among you thinks he would still be in the Hall?

That is exactly my argument. His personality transcended his subpar performances. If the Jets defense plays like they did in the Heidi game, the Colts probably run up 40 points and Joe Namath never even sniffs the HOF. >>

I've been saying the same thing about Namath for years now myself. The guy got in on the basis of one thing and one thing only - the guarantee. Quite frankly, the rest of his career doesn't even merit a second look for the HOF, let alone enshrinement.

Tabe

bigreddog · January 15, 2011 6:57PM

I hear a lot of "What if's" about Namath

FACT: He didn't lose SB III, nor any of the other What IF'S

"As far as Joe Namath's impact, I don't question it. But, I am not questioning impact. I am questioning his abilities as a professional football player worthy of the Hall of Fame. I do have statistics, and statistics say that he was average"

Again, Stats can often being misleading as to a players on field presence and leadership ablities. Average QBs don't lead teams to League and World Championships. Namath's on field savy and leadership is what made those around him play better, as all great QB's do.
He won Chamionships. From the 64 National Championship with the Tide to the 68 AFL Leaugue Championship and the unthinkable 69 World Championship. Namath was anything but Average reguardless what any stats say. I think the knee injuries later really affected and contributed to his decline in play. Surely no serious Football person can dispute his place in League history.

"I can't give him points for being a media darling and being flamboyant. Will someone make the same argument for Chad Ochocinco in 10-15 years?" Possibly the most absurd statement Ive ever heard.
Did Chad Ochocino ever:
Win any league MVP's?
Win any SB MVP's?
Effect the contract negociations process ?
Ever gain respect for a start up league?
Was he Ever responsible for a league merger with the NFL?
Ever Hold one of the most famous passing marks?
Did the Network execs. make sure his was the Star attraction of the first MNF game?
Ever pave the way for all the modern day TV and commercial endorsments Players now enjoy?
Is just the mention of his nickname known through out the world?
Has he ever been a pop culture icon and hosehold name?
Did his style of play ever advance the game?
Did he ever go to Bobby Brady's house to help Bobby with his self confidence?

"Why didn't Dilfer get the MVP? Because he wasn't "Broadway Trent"."
EXACTLY, now your starting to understand

Yes, he threw for 4,000 yards in 14 games under the old rules. That season, in 14 games, he threw the ball 491 times, which is about 35 times a game. The Jets of 1967 were 8-5-1 and Namath threw more interceptions than touchdowns. That same season, Lamonica threw for 3228 yards, 30 TD's and only 20 interceptions. Which stat line would you rather have?

Obviously, The 4007 yards (26 TDs 28 INTs) The first and Only to do so in a 14 game season and a record that stood for the next 18 years until the 16 game season came along.

I don't dispute that Namath didn't have the greatest stat sheet, But a player's HOF worthiness is NOT just numbers.
I look at it this way, If you visit the Pro Football HOF you will be taken on a tour through the history of Professional Football.
That history Can NOT be told without Joe Namath. It can be told without many of the other players in the HOF.
Not to bad for the Worst QB Enshirned in the Canton.

stown · January 15, 2011 10:13PM

<< Average QBs don't lead teams to League and World Championships. >>

You're absolutely correct.

Signed,

Trent Dilfer

bigreddog - you really aren't making the best case for Namath. So far: he won one SB, had one unprecedented season for passing yards, and a beloved in New York. Your argument is actually making me thing Namath shouldn't be in the Hall, rather than the other way around.

And just a reminder of a famous conspiracy theory... The NFL's tv contract was up for renewal after SB III. Had the clean cut Unitas won, most believe the younger generation from the late 60s wouldn't have cared about football. But that didn't happen... The media darling, a young and rebellious kid, in the #1 media market won and the rest is history.

Estil · January 16, 2011 1:00AM

For all the bashing of Joe Namath going on, isn't his 1965 Topps RC football's equivalent of the 1952 Topps Mantle?

Who are the worst players in the Baseball and/or Football Halls of Fame?

Comments