Slater and Speedie

User avatar
RyanChristiansen
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:51 pm
Location: Fargo, ND

Slater and Speedie

Post by RyanChristiansen »

Slater and Speedie are in. Now would be the time for the PFRA to issue a press release about the fact the PFRA has been advocating them for the HOF for a while now. Your thoughts?

https://www.profootballhof.com/centenni ... gn=1.15.20
"Five seconds to go... A field goal could win it. Up in the air! Going deep! Tipped! Caught! Touchdown! The Vikings! They win it! Time has run out!" - Vikings 28, Browns 23, December 14, 1980, Metropolitan Stadium
sheajets
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 12:22 am

Re: Slater and Speedie

Post by sheajets »

Both are Hall of Famers in my book. Speedie especially...short career but not really his fault due to the war that he got started at 26. Dominant receiver on a championship franchise. Perhaps it was Paul Browns vengefulness that kept him out of the hall initially. Once Brown passed Speedie at that point had simply faded into the forgotten oldie category sadly.

Slater is a no brainer. Just a tremendous player who made other significant contributions. Another guy that time forgot until now
Last edited by sheajets on Wed Jan 15, 2020 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bachslunch
Posts: 824
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 7:09 am

Re: Slater and Speedie

Post by bachslunch »

Not much to celebrate today, but that's at least one bright spot. Might as well make stone soup out of gravel.
Gary Najman
Posts: 1429
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 1:24 pm
Location: Mexico City, Mexico

Re: Slater and Speedie

Post by Gary Najman »

sheajets wrote:Both are Hall of Famers in my book. Speedie especially...short career but not really his fault due to the war that he got started at 26. Dominant receiver on a championship franchise. Perhaps it was Paul Browns vengefulness that kept him out of the hall initially. Once Brown passed Speedie at that point had simply faded into the forgotten oldie category sadly.
You have to add the fact that Speedie went to Canada for his final three pro seasons (he led the CFL in receiving TDs in 1953). Buit I do remember a 1981 or 1982 Street@Smith magazine, when they commented about great receiving duos, and Dub Jones and Mac Spedie were mentioned, and they posted a photo of each of them (interesting they didn't put a photo of Hall of Famer Dante Lavelli). Other duos I recall were Hirsch and Fears, ansd Swann and Stallworth (they were both active at the time).
JohnH19
Posts: 910
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:18 pm

Re: Slater and Speedie

Post by JohnH19 »

How does Harold Carmichael get selected over Drew Pearson and Cliff Branch? Too many Cowboys and Raiders in the Hall already?
I don't know much about Ed Sprinkle, other than his reputation, but is he a deserving selection?
Very happy to see Alex Karras and Steve Sabol elected.
Andy Piascik
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:32 pm

Re: Slater and Speedie

Post by Andy Piascik »

How does Harold Carmichael get selected over Drew Pearson and Cliff Branch? Too many Cowboys and Raiders in the Hall already?
I don't know much about Ed Sprinkle, other than his reputation, but is he a deserving selection?
Very happy to see Alex Karras and Steve Sabol elected.
As has been discussed elsewhere on this board, although there isn't unanimity, Carmichael was a terrible choice, especially given who else was on the list of 20 that they could have chosen. Ditto Sprinkle. And Covert. And Hill.

Don't think there are "too many" Cowboys given all the success they had for three decades beginning in 1966, and I say that as someone who never liked them. I wasn't big on Harris but I'm okay with him. Not big on Pearson, either, but he's certainly more deserving than Carmichael. He'll probably get in eventually especially since people will now endlessly beat the "He's the only guy from the all-1970s team who isn't in" drum. Wasn't big on Bob Hayes getting in but there are definitely worse.

Then there's Howley, who's more deserving than all of the above, most of those who went in today and a whole lot of others already in.

Just out of curiosity, who are the Cowboys you think shouldn't be in? Unless I'm missing somebody, there are eight in from the Landry era, not counting Ditka, Alworth and all the others they picked up in the early 1970s who did their thing with other teams: Lilly, Staubach, Hayes, Renfro, Harris, Dorsett, Rayfield Wright and Randy White. And they don't all overlap. I think the most they had at any one time was five (again, excluding all those early 1970s guys).

Are you talking more about guys from the 1990s and later?

Now, as far as too many Raiders (and Packers and Steelers), I agree. But that's another story.
User avatar
Ken Crippen
Site Moderator
Posts: 529
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2014 8:10 am
Location: Here
Contact:

Re: Slater and Speedie

Post by Ken Crippen »

RyanChristiansen wrote:Slater and Speedie are in. Now would be the time for the PFRA to issue a press release about the fact the PFRA has been advocating them for the HOF for a while now. Your thoughts?

https://www.profootballhof.com/centenni ... gn=1.15.20

We are working on the press release as we speak.
Football Learning Academy: https://www.football-learning-academy.com
An online school teaching football history.

FLA Podcast: https://www.football-learning-academy.com/pages/podcast
JohnH19
Posts: 910
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:18 pm

Re: Slater and Speedie

Post by JohnH19 »

Andy Piascik wrote:
How does Harold Carmichael get selected over Drew Pearson and Cliff Branch? Too many Cowboys and Raiders in the Hall already?
I don't know much about Ed Sprinkle, other than his reputation, but is he a deserving selection?
Very happy to see Alex Karras and Steve Sabol elected.
As has been discussed elsewhere on this board, although there isn't unanimity, Carmichael was a terrible choice, especially given who else was on the list of 20 that they could have chosen. Ditto Sprinkle. And Covert. And Hill.

Don't think there are "too many" Cowboys given all the success they had for three decades beginning in 1966, and I say that as someone who never liked them. I wasn't big on Harris but I'm okay with him. Not big on Pearson, either, but he's certainly more deserving than Carmichael. He'll probably get in eventually especially since people will now endlessly beat the "He's the only guy from the all-1970s team who isn't in" drum. Wasn't big on Bob Hayes getting in but there are definitely worse.

Then there's Howley, who's more deserving than all of the above, most of those who went in today and a whole lot of others already in.

Just out of curiosity, who are the Cowboys you think shouldn't be in? Unless I'm missing somebody, there are eight in from the Landry era, not counting Ditka, Alworth and all the others they picked up in the early 1970s who did their thing with other teams: Lilly, Staubach, Hayes, Renfro, Harris, Dorsett, Rayfield Wright and Randy White. And they don't all overlap. I think the most they had at any one time was five (again, excluding all those early 1970s guys).

Are you talking more about guys from the 1990s and later?

Now, as far as too many Raiders (and Packers and Steelers), I agree. But that's another story.
I don’t think there are too many Cowboys in the Hall. I was only speculating as to a possible reason why Carmichael was selected over Pearson.
rhickok1109
Posts: 1473
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Slater and Speedie

Post by rhickok1109 »

Andy Piascik wrote:
How does Harold Carmichael get selected over Drew Pearson and Cliff Branch? Too many Cowboys and Raiders in the Hall already?
I don't know much about Ed Sprinkle, other than his reputation, but is he a deserving selection?
Very happy to see Alex Karras and Steve Sabol elected.
As has been discussed elsewhere on this board, although there isn't unanimity, Carmichael was a terrible choice, especially given who else was on the list of 20 that they could have chosen. Ditto Sprinkle. And Covert. And Hill.

Don't think there are "too many" Cowboys given all the success they had for three decades beginning in 1966, and I say that as someone who never liked them. I wasn't big on Harris but I'm okay with him. Not big on Pearson, either, but he's certainly more deserving than Carmichael. He'll probably get in eventually especially since people will now endlessly beat the "He's the only guy from the all-1970s team who isn't in" drum. Wasn't big on Bob Hayes getting in but there are definitely worse.

Then there's Howley, who's more deserving than all of the above, most of those who went in today and a whole lot of others already in.

Just out of curiosity, who are the Cowboys you think shouldn't be in? Unless I'm missing somebody, there are eight in from the Landry era, not counting Ditka, Alworth and all the others they picked up in the early 1970s who did their thing with other teams: Lilly, Staubach, Hayes, Renfro, Harris, Dorsett, Rayfield Wright and Randy White. And they don't all overlap. I think the most they had at any one time was five (again, excluding all those early 1970s guys).

Are you talking more about guys from the 1990s and later?

Now, as far as too many Raiders (and Packers and Steelers), I agree. But that's another story.
As a Packer fan, I wonder why you think there are too many Packers and which ones you would remove. After all, the Packers have been in the NFL a lot longer than most teams and they've won more championships than any other team. Eight of the Packer inductees were active well before most current NFL teams even existed.

In 60 seasons, the Cowboys have won 5 championships and have 17 HOF members (also not counting players who joined the team late in their careers). In 100 seasons, the Packers have won 13 championships and have 25 HOF members. I don't that's at all disproportionate.
Shipley
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 12:58 pm

Re: Slater and Speedie

Post by Shipley »

There's no way Jim Covert should be in over Joe Jacoby. Same with Harold Carmichael over Cliff Branch.
Post Reply