Skip to content

Tagliabue, Terrell Davis, Ray Guy don't survive HOF cutdown

The Hall of Fame announced their 15 modern-era finalists on Friday.

Let’s start with the bad news and go over the ten men that didn’t survive the cut from 25 to 15.

These ten are out: Cliff Branch, Terrell Davis, Chris Doleman, Paul Tagliabue, Art Modell, Ray Guy, Aeneas Williams, Steve Tasker, Lester Hayes, and Kevin Greene.

Tagliabue’s move represents a step back. He is a three-time finalist; his candidacy could be pending the current labor negotiations. 

Guy and Tasker show how difficult it is for a special teams player to get close.  Guy was a seven-time finalist, but missed for a second straight year.

Terrell Davis has not been a finalist and fell behind Roger Craig, who is a finalist.

The committee rarely recognizes defensive backs.  The elimination of Hayes and Williams guarantees that no one from the secondary will get in this year. Hayes is a four-time finalist.

We’ll post the 15 finalists shortly.  In the meantime, Raider Nation has our sympathy because three of their players didn’t make it further.

Permalink 44 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
44 Responses to “Tagliabue, Terrell Davis, Ray Guy don't survive HOF cutdown”
  1. Lumas101 says: Jan 8, 2010 6:26 PM

    Isn’t Dick LeBeau a finalist as a defensive back?

  2. AutumnWind999 says: Jan 8, 2010 6:33 PM

    We’ll post the 15 finalists shortly. In the meantime, Raider Nation has our sympathy because three of their players didn’t make it further.
    ————————-
    Not to mention Kenny Stabler and Todd Christensen. Christensen’s numbers are virtually identical to Kellen Winslow Sr.’s and from the same era while Christensen has a ring and Winslow doesn’t. But Winslow got in the Hall long ago while Christensen is barely on the radar. I guess if Christensen played to the cameras and had guys carry him off the field after an especially long game he’d probably be in too.
    Live and learn.

  3. BenRapistberger says: Jan 8, 2010 6:42 PM

    TD and Tasker should have made the cut.

  4. SlimPickens says: Jan 8, 2010 6:50 PM

    i thought todd christensen was a host for american gladiator. he was a football player too?

  5. Gautam says: Jan 8, 2010 7:04 PM

    what does Kevin Greene have to do to get into the Hall :O
    #3 in sacks ALL TIME

  6. raideralex99 says: Jan 8, 2010 7:05 PM

    Al Davis strikes again … the only reason some of these Raider greats are not in the HOF is the hate towards Al.

  7. parasonic says: Jan 8, 2010 7:07 PM

    Terrell Davis lost all HOF hope after Reuben Droughns got 1,200 yards and Mike Anderson got 1,000 yards behind the same line. Not to mention CP got over 1,500 two years in a row.

  8. Icon says: Jan 8, 2010 7:11 PM

    Always laugh every time I hear about Guy being a mention in HOF balloting, ad nauseam. To quote a John of note, Madden: “BOOM! He fell short again!”
    Ray Guy has no business being elected to the NFL HOF – at minimum until the late KC punter Jerrell Wilson is in. Guy was hype – Wilson was results.
    Wilson was the better punter – he not only had the better gross average but also the better net. Check the punt return yardage gained vs both punters in their careers – Wilson bests Guy there as well. Fair catches? Ditto. Times led the NFL in punting? Yup, Wilson wins again.
    Jerrell Wilson, Sammy Baugh, Yale Lary are the best ever. Guy comes next. Then a host of others who were very good from the 1960s on.
    Today, Lechler is the best punter in the game, but by the time he’s swung his leg as many times and years as Wilson/the rest did, Lechler’s averages both gross & net will take a tumble due to use i.e., nee wear & tear. Guy, he was very good…but not the best.
    He is a result of over-hype (although not as much as the QBs & receivers of the past 30 some years – frauds via the bastardized NFL rule changes which relegates the modern era stats same superfluous.

  9. Icon says: Jan 8, 2010 7:18 PM

    More KC players who belong:
    Safety Johnny Robinson & offensive tackle Jim Tyrer – the best in the business at their respective positions and still not in the HOF. A HOF without them is SOL.
    Robinson had better stats than Larry Wilson, played fewer years as a safety & won several championships to Wilson’s none. You guessed it, Larry’s in & Johnny is not.
    Tyrer played the more difficult LT & had more All Star/All Pro seasons and won more championships than did the ballyhooed AFL RT Ron Mix did. You guessed it: Mix is in the HOF for SD, Tyrer is not.
    No raison, no justice, no account HOF voters…

  10. Ray Guy says: Jan 8, 2010 7:24 PM

    “# Icon says:
    Always laugh every time I hear about Guy being a mention in HOF balloting, ad nauseam. To quote a John of note, Madden: “BOOM! He fell short again!”
    Ray Guy has no business being elected to the NFL HOF – at minimum until the late KC punter Jerrell Wilson is in. Guy was hype – Wilson was results.”
    ______________________________________
    My words to you son. There’s always next year for me and there’s always “do want fries with that?” for you.

  11. TroyBoyDK says: Jan 8, 2010 7:30 PM

    @Icon – it is around the league generally perceived that Ray Guy is the best punter to play the game (don’t bring in Sammy – that was a different game back then!). You can use your statistics all you want, but to quote an old coach (Danish soccer coach); “Statistics are like mini-skirts… they give you good ideas but hide the most important parts”. And no, I’m not a raider fan – on the contrary…
    On related notes I find it disgusting that a player like Guy, generally agreed upon to be the best to play his position, can’t get in! Not only do that snup the position, it also diminishes the role of the punter. Modern football is often said to be a game of field position – here the punter is a crucial, yet overlooked part.
    Jerry Rice is a shoe in because he’s the best WR ever… but play a minor position and you will eternally be overlooked… that is just sad!

  12. 4ever19 says: Jan 8, 2010 7:34 PM

    I don’t understand Ray Guy not getting in. Same with Lester the Molester. But why should Art Carpetbagger Modell get a mention. He deserves only to be sitting in the Dog Pound in shorts and T-shirt in January. He had no business moving the original Browns and the NFL should have taken the franchise away from him.

  13. bornman3 says: Jan 8, 2010 7:57 PM

    I’ll be happy as long as Tagliabue stays out.
    @4ever19
    I understand people feelings about Modell. If Tagliabue had awarded Baltimore a franchise instead of Jacksonville (which will probably move anyway), the Browns could not leave for Baltimore. I love the Ravens, but after the Colts pulled their shenanigans, I will always feel I should apologize to Cleveland fans for their heartbreak. Not a fun thing to go through.

  14. LTIUAFO says: Jan 8, 2010 8:09 PM

    ART MODEL MUST NEVER GET INTO THE HOF!!!
    Let me explain what will happen IF he ever does. There are people in Cleveland who will, VERY CAREFULLY, break into the HOF, remove ALL of Mr. Model’s “stuff”, and DESTROY ALL OF IT!! And this will happen, even if it’s all replaced, NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES, or WHAT IT TAKES TO ACCOMPLISH!
    ART MODEL MUST NEVER GET INTO THE HOF!!!

  15. BUNYAN says: Jan 8, 2010 8:20 PM

    Gentlemen, the HOF IS A JOKE ANYWAY. There are many players who should have been in there long ago and many who shouldn’t be in there now. It all depends if the writers and sportscasters like you or not. Ken Stabler was one of the greatest quarterbacks to ever play the game and he is still not in the HOF. There are alot of sports writers who have a vendetta against him because he was not one to give interviews or talk to the press during his playing days. One of those writers is Zimmerman. He said that he would never vote for Stabler. In other words it’s not about the greatness of the player, but about the power of the sports writer. Just ask the players and the coaches who played against the Snake. They know how great he was and that he should have been inducted long ago.

  16. nflhof says: Jan 8, 2010 8:31 PM

    Ray Guy will make soon. He should be in the Hall.

  17. TheWizard says: Jan 8, 2010 8:31 PM

    Sometimes they really miss it big.
    Rock hall of fame has the Pretenders, and not the Moody Blues.
    Ray Guy should have been in years ago.
    When we were little kids in school we all knew who he was. How many punters have that kind of following?

  18. Icon says: Jan 8, 2010 8:33 PM

    TroyBoyDK said
    “it is around the league generally perceived that Ray Guy is the best punter to play the game”
    - perceptions vary, consensus is never a measure of right or greatness, just volume or worse a mob. That a modern day player might have better stats than yesteryear same doesn’t in & of itself indicate value or ‘better’ as said pertains to QBs/WRs as I said before. Back to the gist, HOF voting is based on those very stats you dismiss- when those stats are not convenient for you/your argument. Also, politics, bias & subjectivity reign. Stats however, are fact, anything more as with opinion, suspect.
    “(don’t bring in Sammy – that was a different game back then!).”
    - don’t let a wetness behind the earlobes blind you to reality: kicking the football hasn’t changed, only the hype that accompanies it; the essential aspects of the game have not changed.
    “Jerry Rice is a shoe in because he’s the best WR ever”
    - I’m old enough to have ‘watched’ Sammy Baugh play football, and every team/player since, so my understanding is not nascent. As such, I can say without equivocation that Jerry Rice is no better than several receivers who played yesteryear… among them a Don Hutson, Lance Alworth, Otis Taylor, Paul Warfield & Charley Taylor & I could also name many more but will not in the interest of time & scarcity internet paper this forum.
    The best players of yesterday were at minimum ‘as good’ as the best after/today – and in many, many cases, even better. Ditto for yesteryear teams.

  19. efangule says: Jan 8, 2010 8:38 PM

    The HOF process is all a sham for 55 sports writers to claim they now best who should be in the HOF.
    They should have 55 current HOFera also in this commity so that people who actually played against the potentials
    can say whether they should get innor not.
    Until then, the whole thing will just be a joke.
    I have heard Peter king say “players are bias and won’t vote
    for guys who deserve to get in because they didn’t like them or their team”. Then in the same breath say “tagliabeau won’t get in because of how he treated reporters”. Talk about a double standard.
    How about you do an article on that Florio? Or are you too in bed with King to make waves.

  20. Big Tex says: Jan 8, 2010 8:38 PM

    AutumnWind999, Todd Christensen had identical numbers? Winslow had more TDs, More catches, more total yards, and averaged almost 20 more yards per game over his career. Kenny Stabler probably partied away any chance at the HOF. I would imagine that most Raider fans are in full “bunker mentality” mode after watching what has transpired in Oakland over the last 7 seasons, but Oakland is not under-represented in Canton.

  21. Drafty says: Jan 8, 2010 8:52 PM

    Terrell Davis won’t get in because he was a Bronco.
    Put him on a team east of the Mississippi or Dallas and he gets in purely by virtue of the Super Bowls alone.
    It’s like the Grammys – pure bullshit.

  22. Raider3:16 says: Jan 8, 2010 9:12 PM

    Thats because that all the Charger did was pass.
    If you ever saw Stabler play you would know he should be in the Hall. As for how represented the Raiders are in the Hall. We should have as many in the Hall as deserve to be.
    The fact Branch isn’t in there is pathetic.
    GUy was the best of all time. I guess thats why they have an award named after him. Ask any punter and they will tell you that’s who patterned themselves after.
    As far a Wilson goes..ROFLMAO!

  23. Big Tex says: Jan 8, 2010 9:26 PM

    Terrell Davis won’t get in because 4 really good years doesn’t equal a HOF career. Injuries killed his Hall chances.

  24. Beast Of The East says: Jan 8, 2010 9:32 PM

    BS That Ray Guy is not in the Hall Of Fame. Arguably top 2 or 3 punters of all time.

  25. RaiderChile says: Jan 8, 2010 9:39 PM

    Al Davis has done so much BS to be hated by the NFL. I don’t blame them because we are seeing the crap rise to the surface with his woeful performance as Lord of the Ring-less years!
    The players of old deserve to be in there. Branch set the standards for post season reception records and Guy was, not just a great punter but an innovator in the field position game. The term ‘hang time’ was first used from Guy’s punts. He changed the game, so what if its a punter. His mark is still felt in today’s game.
    Special teamers ARE part of the game. Would you remove Blanda’s kicker stats? I don’t think so. Adam Vinatieri has two of the most important kicks in NFL history and he won’t go in because he is a kicker? Tasker was a consistently great special teams player and he made that great play in the Super Bowl, Come on, he was money on special teams and was dominate and innovated the game too!
    According to the HOF rules, the special teamers shouldn’t even go to the PRo Bowl right? They only play part time right? Why should they go and get a full bonus check for part time work right?
    The HOF needs to evolve it’s thinking and those asshole old school writers from the east coast are the ones holding the grudge on the Raider players more than the NFL or HOF officials.
    But Davis is a coot and those who defend him are just too stupid to give it up. They will go 4-12 next year with or without a new coach! The common denominator in this Raider free fall is AL DAVIS!
    GET A CLUE IDIOT RAIDER…NO…AL DAVIS FANS, HE’S DONE.

  26. Icon says: Jan 8, 2010 9:40 PM

    For the cognitively bereft…
    Jerrel Wilson vs Ray Guy (career)
    Gross Average
    Wilson 43.0 / Guy 42.4 :
    ADVANTAGE – WILSON
    ***
    Net Average
    Wilson 35.4 / Guy 33.8:
    ADVANTAGE – WILSON
    ***
    Led league in punting
    Wilson – 4 times/Guy – 3 times:
    ADVANTAGE – WILSON
    ***
    Ray who?
    Game, set, match: JERREL WILSON

  27. Icon says: Jan 8, 2010 10:09 PM

    So then, now that we’ve duly considered punting as evidenced by the Guy who must ‘look up to and at’ his better – Jerrel Wilson – we move on to another area.
    Punting is not subject to the passing of time nor the changing (bastardizing) of football rules as has been the case offense (passing, receiving) some 30 years now.
    More games per season modern day, more passing than yesteryear, and the oh so easy in comparison rules that coddle QB (“put em in a dress” as Butkus opined), and majorly protect receivers as if labias – this unlike yesteryear when a CB or S could batter receivers about the field all day long each & every Sunday with no 5 yd. bump rule just as long as the football wasn’t in the air.
    If the QBs and WRs/TEs/RBs of yesteryear played under the liberalized rules that have been in place for many years now, the name Rice would remain but a side dish on the football menu…one of many fine choices but not ‘the’ haute cuisine.
    Yes, yesteryear was better… unquestionably.

  28. swervinmervin says: Jan 8, 2010 10:41 PM

    I forget – how many rings does Wilson have? Last I checked, Guy had 3.
    Dont read to much into stats. Marino had better stats than Montana. But most people who know football know Montana was the better player. A lot more than stats.
    Look at guys like Lynn Swann. His stats SUCK. He’s in the HOF because he played big in big games. Ray Guy. Most players WHO PLAYED in that era will tell you Ray Guy was the best punter EVER.
    The only idiots who say Wilson was the best punter ever are hillbillys from Kansas City and Dr. Zzzzzzzzz. Now get lost, kid. YOur mom’s calling you.

  29. Wick says: Jan 8, 2010 11:27 PM

    Punters have NO business in the NFL Hall of Fame. None.
    That’d be like enshrining the world’s “best” kazoo “artist” into the Rock ‘n Roll Hall of Fame.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAUwv3fKTho
    No dice. Punters aren’t real football players – and should be just damned grateful they can make 6 figures plus doing less work than a 95 year old Walmart greeter.

  30. Icon says: Jan 8, 2010 11:32 PM

    swervinmervin said
    “I forget”
    - yes… but PFT doesn’t discriminate, as you evidence…
    “- how many rings does Wilson have? Last I checked, Guy had 3.”
    - remember Gale Sayers book “I Am Third”? Last time we checked, Jerrel Wilson was still 1st & Ray was still ‘just another Guy’… and 2nd to Jerrel.
    “Dont read to much into stats. Marino had better stats than Montana. But most people who know football know Montana was the better player.’
    - ‘most people’ huh? There’s that ‘consensus’ thing again – the one that I addressed & rendered moot afore as nothing more than the mournful wail nee plea of bias, subjectivity and rule-addled modern day beneficiaries.
    You ‘can’ fool most of the people some of the time as the old adage goes… especially latter day types. Over-hypes be the name both the above QBs who qualify as such in comparison their betters fromst yesteryear, ones bearing the names Baugh, Unitas, Starr, Dawson, Jurgensen, et al…
    “Look at guys like Lynn Swann. His stats SUCK. He’s in the HOF because he played big in big games. Ray Guy. Most players WHO PLAYED in that era will tell you Ray Guy was the best punter EVER.”
    - there you go again with that ‘most guys’ stuff… you sure get around/know alot of folks, huh.
    Un mal – Wilson #1, Guy #2. Swann had neither the stats ‘NOR’ any more big game catches than Otis Taylor did- if you knew as much about Otis or football in general you would be aware of this fact.
    Keep trying…

  31. Wick says: Jan 9, 2010 12:00 AM

    icon – you seem like the happiest guy in america. no trace of deeply rooted bitterness or psychological damage whatsoever.

  32. Icon says: Jan 9, 2010 12:31 AM

    While stats are the main arbiter as to evidence (championships not so much because the HOF unlike team is individual award), one cannot in good conscience ignore some the rather obvious other aspects.
    The fact that on the one hand one can claim’ stats’ while others dismiss them points up the problem: HOF voters just as those opinions this PFT forum bow to subjectivity. What ‘cannot’ be denied is:
    a) stats are immutable on their face, but
    b) circumstance must be considered, yet too
    c) bias/politics/subjectivity reigns
    The fact more games are played now than season’s afore and rules have changed throughout the years to make it ‘easier’ for offense -QBs/WRs/TEs/RBs et al to accumulate stats ‘cannot’ be denied. Just as I said the latter day stats are relative and so skew/ are largely meaningless and do not – necessarily – reflect ‘any’ greater talent … rather, just ‘greater’ as in/by way of more opportunities = ‘more.’
    For example, that it took a Barry Bonds 837 more at bats (with steroids or not) to even ‘equal’ a Ruth at 714 homeruns cannot be denied. That Bonds had only 695 homeruns to Ruth’s 714 when both had an equal # at bats speaks to who the ‘better’ homerun hitter was; that Bonds finally passed Ruth (‘more’) must be considered in the context at bats relativity (among many other aspects.) It’s also true a Roger Maris needed an extra 40 at bats to hit his 61st hr to Ruth’s 60 – forget the extra games aspect. Mano y mano, Ruth was a better hr hitter then either a Maris & Bonds…both merely continued running (playing/getting at bats) past a finish line of a race Ruth already won many years/less at bats before.
    An Emmitt Smith is no more the ‘best’ runner than Marino or Favre or whomever the best QB, any of them, JUST because they have ‘more’ be it stats or championships, whatever. Other factors must be considered – team strength, era which considers rules in place & competition as in # of & quality of teams & players, style/scheme, opportunity, etc.
    But no one is capable sans a bias of distinguishing between the wheat & the chaff. The NFL HOF is all we have…consensus any we will never have.
    On the other, no one will ever convince me a better RB has lived than a Jim Brown or Gale Sayers, tho many have been great. That neither has the stats of all-time stat leaders in most categories does not diminish them for me. More or ‘most’ as in ‘stat’ is one measure … ‘greatness’ aside from said is quite another – and separate; you know greatness when you see it whether you can quantify it or not and or whether it lasts 10 years (or about 10 minutes, see Greg Cook, CIN Bengals rookie QB ’69 who no less an authority than Bill Walsh called ‘the best QB’ he ever coached while he played; his career essentially ended with injury 4th pro game that same year.)
    ‘More’ in and of itself is not a measure of greatness, it’s just ‘more’, whether the subject matter is stats or people’ s consensus of opinion on a player, this PFT forum or any other. As no consensus has/ever will exist, the greatest HOF of all is the one resides in the hearts & memories of each & everyone of us.

  33. TroyBoyDK says: Jan 9, 2010 9:04 AM

    @Icon
    Firstly, HOF = Hall of Fame. It’s not the hall of really good stats!
    Danny White has a better QB rating than Troy Aikman, but I think that even you would agree Troy was the better QB!
    Your whole ‘the past was better’ issues is plain old wrong. Athletes today are way better than they were 40 years ago – this is not Greek mythology you know, the son can become better than the father!
    You use the example of Babe Ruth – Fine. We can all agree (though you would hate that) that he was one of the best to play. But I say, he was relatively better than his peers – You can’t compare them directly, but only their influence and value to their teams. I’m guessing pitchers today are a lot better than they were 90 years ago – thus in a direct comparison, Bonds is probably better than Babe, because if Babe played today he would be facing tougher opponents, but its irrelevant because it’s comparing apples to oranges!
    Now back to the subject. You wrote that;
    - don’t let a wetness behind the earlobes blind you to reality: kicking the football hasn’t changed, only the hype that accompanies it; the essential aspects of the game have not changed.
    Well either you are not as old as you claim to be (to have an objective remembrance of Sammy you would have to be closing in on 70) or dementia is starting to affect you! The essential aspects hasn’t changed! Seriously! Sammy played QB and often punted on 3rd downs. Now if the opposing team is defending a pass play they don’t have any PR waiting, which automatically increases both gross and net yardage.
    Finally,
    If everybody agrees Guy was the better player then that’s that, then he is the better player. You are only as good as the people surrounding you think you are. And then you can throw all the statistics in you want to, because it honestly doesn’t matter.

  34. swervinmervin says: Jan 9, 2010 10:59 AM

    ICON is an IDIOT.
    He thinks stats mean everything. Obviously he never played a sport in this life. Guys like Boomer Essiason, Cunningham, Andre Rison, etc…. have much better STATS than some players in the HOF. It doesnt mean that they were better players. Get out of your hole in Kansas City.

  35. Icon says: Jan 9, 2010 11:34 AM

    TroyBoyDK said
    “Danny White has a better QB rating than Troy Aikman, but I think that even you would agree Troy was the better QB!”
    - if White has a better rating (and he does) he ‘is’ better on the face of it. If a rating – which is stat based – is non sequitur, then so too and more so even is any subjective take/opinion one or every on who a ‘better’ QB or any position/player, and as such so too anyone’s right to agree/disagree.
    ‘Realativity’ must be considered as I have stated afore. In realistic context Aikman benifited more than White did by way his level of team support via such as E. Smith, Irvin, Johnston, Novacek, and a HOF O-line et al – Aikman was a ‘part’ of more championship ‘teams’. TEAM does not in and of itself make an Aikman or any other player for that matter the better, QB or otherwise.
    “Your whole ‘the past was better’ issues is plain old wrong. Athletes today are way better than they were 40 years ago – this is not Greek mythology you know, the son can become better than the father!”
    - the ‘losers’ of the each the first 3 Superbowls were also ‘better’ than their conquerors – i.e., athletes who were bigger, stronger and faster almost across the board as teams, yet KC, OAK & BALT lost each of those games. The better ‘team’ won each those games (GB twice and NYJ once.) Twas not until Superbowl 4 the bigger, stronger, faster team (KC) won. Thence and continuing to today & evermore the ‘better’ team will not and does not always win.
    “You use the example of Babe Ruth – Fine. We can all agree (though you would hate that) that he was one of the best to play. But I say, he was relatively better than his peers – You can’t compare them directly, but only their influence and value to their teams. I’m guessing pitchers today are a lot better than they were 90 years ago – thus in a direct comparison, Bonds is probably better than Babe, because if Babe played today he would be facing tougher opponents, but its irrelevant because it’s comparing apples to oranges!”
    - no, rather it is in fact as equal as equal can be under the circumstances we must consider, i.e., opportunity vs opportunity, Ruth was a better hr hitter vs pitching his era than was Bonds vs his (this is the case despite any steroid issues – still couldn’t elevate a Bonds past the Babe.)
    Ruth never faced the best of today and just the same, Bonds never faced the best of Ruth’s day, and neither player faced a Koufax or Seaver or Carlton or Marichal or … well, you get the gist – we have a wash. The best pitchers as players in any era are as good or better than the same ones of another era.
    Beyond said, I can argue as many reasons why the accomplishments yesteryear trump today’s, or vice versa. In the final analysis what we are left with is opportunity per opportunity, Ruth was the ‘better’ hr hitter than Bonds. ‘More’ hrs does not equate with ‘better’, and certainly not when it takes one guy (Bonds) almost 1,000 extra at bats to merely equal the better (Ruth’s) hr total. AB for AB, Ruth dominates Bonds.
    “Sammy played QB and often punted on 3rd downs.”
    - wonderful; Jerrel Wilson also played RB in the pros. OK, your turn…
    “if the opposing team is defending a pass play they don’t have any PR waiting, which automatically increases both gross and net yardage.”
    - and if a Ray Guy punts the ball high so that it stays up there forever and a day and the punt returner cannot return it, that is same difference as Baugh example you cite. And yet, Guy STILL could not match a Baugh or a Jerrel Wilson for either gross OR net average, despite the latter aspect taking into consideration return yards, touchbacks, fair catches, etc.
    “If everybody agrees Guy was the better player then that’s that, then he is the better player.”
    - I’ve already addressed this before: a consensus any ‘validates’ NOTHING. Again, ‘more’ does not affirm or confer value beyond the context. Too, opinions everyone’s are subjectivity at its finest. Stats while not the sole consideration are viable, and based on fact rather than emotion.
    Keep trying…

  36. Icon says: Jan 9, 2010 11:36 AM

    wick
    Go flick your bic… you need something to light a fire under your cognitive impotence.

  37. Icon says: Jan 9, 2010 11:45 AM

    This addendum: Bonds actually had only 614 hrs to Ruth’s 714 when each had an equal # at bats – that’s 95 LESS hrs for Bonds than Ruth had at an equal # of at bats/opportunities.
    By the way, I’m an old AFL fan: favorite teams KC, then OAK, then SD – and as for baseball I’m neither a Yankees or Giants fan.
    Point being, I can appreciate the greatness of the greats: like the Raiders/their players despite having been a lifelong Chiefs fan, and can do the same toward a Ruth or a Bonds despite not being a fan of either man’s team(s). That’s called love of the game, not blind allegiance to one team or one player.

  38. Icon says: Jan 9, 2010 11:46 AM

    That should read Ruth 714 hrs, Bonds 619 hrs (95 less) when each had the same # of at bats: 8,399
    : )

  39. Icon says: Jan 9, 2010 11:54 AM

    Oh, and if athletes/players “without question?” keep getting ‘better’ as time goes on, why did a Hank Aaron have only 493 hrs when he had the same # of at bats as Ruth when he had hit 714 and Bonds when he had later had 619?
    Ted Williams .406…DiMaggio’s 56 game hitting streak…Cy Young’s 511 wins…etc.
    Wilt Chamberlain 100 points in a game, 50 point season average…and Wilt STILL holds many unbroekn records, others.
    Len Dawson of the Chiefs STILL holds two NFL passing records to this day, and why has no one yet (or ever likely?) broken Jim Brown’s career yards per carry average? A Bo Jackson doesn’t qualifty/not enough attempts.
    Food for thought ye emaciated football/sports folk herein this PFT forum…

  40. Icon says: Jan 9, 2010 11:56 AM

    mervin is still swervin – and swingin’ and missin’ too, as ever …

  41. Ray Guy says: Jan 9, 2010 1:27 PM

    Icon must have waaaaay toooo much time at his drive up window job.
    You just keep campaigning for your stats. It was the PLAYER and the standards that were set in the GAMES, and the schemes developed because of those players that counts. Did you EVER see these in person? There was no comparison.
    Like I said earlier. There’s always the possibility for a punter next next year in the HOF, but his name won’t be Wilson.
    All my best to you, and watch that timer on the fries.
    Ray

  42. swervinmervin says: Jan 9, 2010 1:44 PM

    ICON -
    You got nothing, chief. According to you, Boomer Essaiason, Randall Cunningham, and Andre Rison are better than most players in the HOF. After all, according to you, because they have better numbers, they are better players….
    What a joke.
    Now go back to your trailer in Kansas City and get your shinebox, son.

  43. Icon says: Jan 9, 2010 2:16 PM

    And when you have them, you know you ‘really’ have them… merv & guy go down for the count – two more victims the unassailable & rapier fact based narrative & logic of Icon!
    Keep trying though…
    : )

  44. wychwood says: Jan 12, 2010 10:10 AM

    It is complete and utter BS that Ken Stabler is not in HOF. Yes, he didn’t have great end to his career but his run with Raiders alone was enough to get him in. He didn’t have great arm or great numbers but he was deadly accurate and one of the all time clutch QB’s w/ Superbowl to his credit. There are a whole of guys from 70′s and early 80′s who should be in HOF but aren’t. I’d like to see them get in before they are all but forgotten. By contrast, players from last 20 years get into HOF a lot faster which I think is mainly because their profiles are a lot higher in the era of internet and 24hr sports channels.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!