Seniors

[rewing84]

Heres a possible final 6 just throwing it out there

Anderson

Baughan

Jacoby

Lewis

Meador

Wistert

[Brian wolf]

Great job endorsing McMichael, readjack ... he pulled a major surprise though I already knew he had alot of support everywhere ...

Still wont be convinced about Gradishar until he is voted in in late January. Get him in voters, so future Broncos on those Orange Crush defenses like Alzado, Thompson, Wright, Smith, Mecklenberg and Fletcher, get a chance to be heard.

[SeahawkFever]

Someone else can totally prove me wrong but he was good, very good, but I have seen players without the so-called "alls" who IMO were dominant
and players without the "numbers" who looked dominant ... not a ton of them but I have also seen guys with a good HOF resume--the numbers,
the pro Bowls, but didn't look dominant to me. Jackson is one of them. Meador is another. Isiah Robertson another--to name three Rams.

But i know of a couple Rams who were dominant who had good honors, good numbers but maybe not as good as the others who to me, were better
p;ayers.

That's the conundrum in my mind I have to work out sometimes.

But hay, someone can say they saw the 1973 Cowboys-Rams game and say Jackson was dominant but to me, that was a big outlier...

I agree on all three players. Meador was a smart player, but I think he really benefited from his supporting cast. Had he been on the Eagles instead of the Rams, I think Meador would have been more like Joe Scarpati than a borderline HOF player. Meador isn't spectacular on film. I remember a clip of Gary Garrison catching a pass, stopping, putting on a quick fake and just flying past Meador as if Eddie was in cement.

Jackson was very productive, but was kind of a one-trick pony. To me, Jackson wasn't close to Warfield or Swann (or even Biletnikoff), but he had better numbers than all of those guys. The most remarkable thing to me about Jackson is how long he kept his speed. He didn't have great hands, didn't really come up with the ball in traffic, but he consistently put up 6 TDs and 750 yards well into his 30s. When he left Philly, his production was replaced by Harold Carmichael. When he left LA, Willie Miller came out of nowhere and put up the same numbers as Jackson. It seemed like he was very replaceable...JMO.

Here's the thing about Harold Jackson:

On one hand, he had a playoff career that probably won't raise too many eyebrows. 548 yards on 24 receptions and five receiving touchdowns isn't exactly nothing, but doesn't compare to most of the Hall of Fame receivers of his generation. Though shoutout to his performance in the 1974 NFC Championship Game where he might have come within two yards of appearing in a Super Bowl (he scored his team's only touchdown, and had a 73 yard reception where he was ran out at the two yard line; the latter of which was followed by a goal line pick by his quarterback, and the Rams lost by only four points).

However as mentioned above, Jackson played on the Eagles, Rams, and Patriots for his prime and never played with a prime Hall of Fame quarterback (in Philly, his quarterbacks were Norm Snead, Pete Liske, and John Reaves, in Los Angeles he played with John Hadl for one year, James Harris, Pat Haden, a few games from a young Ron Jaworski, and from Joe Namath at the end of his career, and in New England, his quarterbacks were Steve Grogan, and Matt Kavanaugh).

Even if you think highly of that group of quarterbacks, the only one I named that is currently in Canton is Namath, and he was in the final season of his career with the Rams, and of the others, the only one I see mentioned as anywhere near Canton is Hadl; and Jackson played with him in 1973 and early 74 only (Hadl and Jackson received the only MVP votes that didn't go to O.J. Simpson in his 2,000 yard season on a side note; probably from their own city, but still).

Not to diminish the careers of any Hall of Fame receivers in the 70's at all, but other than Harold Charmichael, just about every other receiver who made the Hall of Fame and who played a significant amount of their career in the 70's had a prime Hall of Fame quarterback throwing to them at some point (Paul Warfield played with Bob Griese for a few years; Lynn Swann and John Stallworth played with Terry Bradshaw; Fred Biletnikoff and Cliff Branch played with Ken Stabler; Drew Pearson played with Roger Staubach and so on).

In addition to the playoff career, Jackson as said up top had the most receptions, receiving yards, and receiving touchdowns in the 1970's, ranked second all time in receiving yardage up through 1983 when he retired, and his reception and receiving touchdown totals were both top ten as well, with everyone who had as many of each as he did through his retirement making Canton (except Art Powell who has been nominated).

Jackson also had more receiving yards, receptions, receiving touchdowns, and yards per reception in the regular season than Drew Pearson, Lynn Swann, John Stallworth, or Cliff Branch. He had as many touchdowns as Fred Biletnikoff, more total yards and per reception, and only ten fewer receptions, and he had only three fewer touchdowns, and 11 fewer receptions than Harold Charmichael.

So his production in aggregate fits in quite nicely I'd say.

Also, I've heard some people say that due to smashmouth schemes, players who got higher receiving yardage and passing yardage were frowned upon for doing so because it was assumed that the yardage was put up only because the team trailed.

Even so, in Jackson's case, he was the top receiver by yardage for four playoff teams in LA (The Rams of whom had the second best regular season record over 1973-1977 only to the Raiders), and a fifth team in the 79 Patriots who went 9-7, but had the second ranked offense by points and only 15th on defense. Jackson also put up top ten yardage on the 73 and 75 Rams and 79 Patriots.

So even if he has no championships, he proved he could contribute for successful teams, and for a number of successful offenses in addition to his raw stats.

From a Seahawks fan, he may fail the eye test, but at a certain point I would argue that the resume could be viewed as good enough. I say he belongs in Canton, but I can see why he wouldn't have stood out to voters in his regular eligibility (he never played in a Super Bowl after all).

[JohnTurney]

, Jackson as said up top had the most receptions, receiving yards, and receiving touchdowns in the 1970's

can expand that from 1969-81 -- #1 in rec, yds, TDs, 5th in YPC a 13-year span

and he has a case and you make it strong.

having seen him a lot ... something was lacking, dropped more than you'd want. It's not talked about. Yes, QBs were iffy ...

The strongest case is the compiled #s.

As I mentioned above, it's the debate of who has best "case" on paper and who were the best football players. Meador better case than Cromwell but no question who was better football player --- Cromwell. Larry Brooks, to those who saw him play, was elite - but they don't have strong "cases" on paper and will never get in HOF, and prob. shouldn't.

Jackson has a shot ... but when I think of the Rams teams of his era, he fits with the good ones ... McCutcheon, Robertson, Reynolds --- guys like that, not with the Cromwells, Brooks' and Youngbloods. The final three were just different when you saw them but one of of these had a strong HOF case.

[SeahawkFever]

That is certainly an interesting thing to consider.

The thing that is unfortunate is that target data for most 1970's receivers is unavailable. Drops (or at the very least missed passes to his side of the field could be captured by catch percentages).

The question of better player vs better career is an interesting one. I would argue that you can be good enough in one direction or the other to make it to Canton (and if Jackson got in, it'd be on his career certainly).

Though I will say that if you are a deep threat (which he seems to be described as), and you are averaging more yards per reception than Cliff Branch over 78 more receptions, then you must've been a really good deep threat. Branch averaged more per reception over his best individual years don't get me wrong, but Jackson averaged more career wise, and if not for his teammate Stanley Morgan would have led the NFL in yards per reception once in New England. I don't know how many receivers have been second or better in a year in receptions, yards, touchdowns and yards per reception at least once each, but he did that in his career.

Even if he doesn't make the cut in your mind, credit Jackson for having this much of a career after being a 12th round pick.

As for Meador and Cromwell, I see what you mean when you imply that Meador would look like a better career on paper as he has two more pro bowls. But Cromwell's accolades (which include three first team all pros in addition to four pro bowls) might be a tad more impressive because he played his entire career after the merger, whereas Meador played almost entirely in the 60's when accolades were a bit easier to come by (as the NFL and AFL both had pro bowl an all pro teams). Meador was on the NFL side of course, but I think that is worth noting.

Out of curiosity, was Cromwell good at tackling or covering? And was Larry Brooks who you mentioned good at run defense? Just curious because those are aspects of the game that aren't really captured well by individual stats.

[rewing84]

Believe it or not SeahawkFever I agree 100% that Cromwell accolades are more impressive than Meador's and for that reason I'd go Cromwell over meador

[JohnTurney]

As for Meador and Cromwell, I see what you mean when you imply that Meador would look like a better career on paper as he has two more pro bowls. But Cromwell's accolades (which include three first team all pros in addition to four pro bowls) might be a tad more impressive because he played his entire career after the merger, whereas Meador played almost entirely in the 60's when accolades were a bit easier to come by (as the NFL and AFL both had pro bowl an all pro teams). Meador was on the NFL side of course, but I think that is worth noting.

We overthink it. Most of us know the issue with AFL and NFL in the 1960s--double honors ... but not all HOF voters get that. Have tried to discuss this kind of things with some voters ... and their eyes seem to glaze over.

Tried for years trying to explain the tackles (coach vs pressbox stats) and not all ever got that, either.

Try explaining that being a Pro Bowler from NFL East in early 1960s was generally less difficult than the NFL West -- for example. Same for DEs in NFL East -- the better ones were in the West, some of the NFL East DEs wouldn't have been Pro bowlers in the West

PFRA people get into the weeds like that --- the voters, many of them, just don't. I wish they would because you make valid points

Out of curiosity, was Cromwell good at tackling or covering?

Cromwell's range what was special. He was a good tackler, not a hard-hitter, though on occasion he'd get a shot in, but he was someone who was great at pursuit -- say someone is breaking free on opposite side he could close and angle and save a TD ... things like that. He could make picks from the backside of cover two ... seeing his side won see ball so goes "hunting".

Cronwell was the Rams nickel CB in 79-80-81 ... played slot. Later, would sometimes be the dime linebacker under Fritz Shurmur. He was able to cover more ground than a lot of safeties and on all but one occasion showed good hands.

He was a better football player than Meador ...

meador though, was a good tackler, and good coverage ... just didn't have a ton of speed -- good, but not great.

And was Larry Brooks who you mentioned good at run defense? Just curious because those are aspects of the game that aren't really captured well by individual stats.

Brooks had a good base, a natural hitting position stance ... but low ... knees bent - it allowed him to shock blockers trying to base block him. He'd butt them with his head and hands would land on their shoulder pad and he stop their momentum. Could break from blocks and pursue.

As a rusher, he was good, but not on the level of an Alan Page or Mike Reid. He rushed his lane, didn't get fooled, could beat good guards with an arm over or arm under, but mostly was just solid.

But he was not one thing. He was a complete player. Didn't have a lot of speed, but when you watch old game. see how he'd run through guys in the ground, kind if hurdling them (guards cut block a lot) and pursue the ball.

IMO he'd be an 8 or 9 as run defender and a 7-7.5 or so as a rusher, with Page, Reid, Randle, Donald and Sapp, etc being the 9s and 10s of DT pass world -- going on rough scale of 10

[SixtiesFan]

As for Meador and Cromwell, I see what you mean when you imply that Meador would look like a better career on paper as he has two more pro bowls. But Cromwell's accolades (which include three first team all pros in addition to four pro bowls) might be a tad more impressive because he played his entire career after the merger, whereas Meador played almost entirely in the 60's when accolades were a bit easier to come by (as the NFL and AFL both had pro bowl an all pro teams). Meador was on the NFL side of course, but I think that is worth noting.

We overthink it. Most of us know the issue with AFL and NFL in the 1960s--double honors ... but not all HOF voters get that. Have tried to discuss this kind of things with some voters ... and their eyes seem to glaze over.

Tried for years trying to explain the tackles (coach vs pressbox stats) and not all ever got that, either.

Try explaining that being a Pro Bowler from NFL East in early 1960s was generally less difficult than the NFL West -- for example. Same for DEs in NFL East -- the better ones were in the West, some of the NFL East DEs wouldn't have been Pro bowlers in the West

PFRA people get into the weeds like that --- the voters, many of them, just don't. I wish they would because you make valid points

Out of curiosity, was Cromwell good at tackling or covering?

Cromwell's range what was special. He was a good tackler, not a hard-hitter, though on occasion he'd get a shot in, but he was someone who was great at pursuit -- say someone is breaking free on opposite side he could close and angle and save a TD ... things like that. He could make picks from the backside of cover two ... seeing his side won see ball so goes "hunting".

Cronwell was the Rams nickel CB in 79-80-81 ... played slot. Later, would sometimes be the dime linebacker under Fritz Shurmur. He was able to cover more ground than a lot of safeties and on all but one occasion showed good hands.

He was a better football player than Meador ...

meador though, was a good tackler, and good coverage ... just didn't have a ton of speed -- good, but not great.

And was Larry Brooks who you mentioned good at run defense? Just curious because those are aspects of the game that aren't really captured well by individual stats.

Brooks had a good base, a natural hitting position stance ... but low ... knees bent - it allowed him to shock blockers trying to base block him. He'd butt them with his head and hands would land on their shoulder pad and he stop their momentum. Could break from blocks and pursue.

As a rusher, he was good, but not on the level of an Alan Page or Mike Reid. He rushed his lane, didn't get fooled, could beat good guards with an arm over or arm under, but mostly was just solid.

But he was not one thing. He was a complete player. Didn't have a lot of speed, but when you watch old game. see how he'd run through guys in the ground, kind if hurdling them (guards cut block a lot) and pursue the ball.

IMO he'd be an 8 or 9 as run defender and a 7-7.5 or so as a rusher, with Page, Reid, Randle, Donald and Sapp, etc being the 9s and 10s of DT pass world -- going on rough scale of 10

"...and on all but one occasion showed good hands."

Late in the third quarter of Super Bowl XIV Nolan Cromwell had an interception in his hands but dropped it. There was no one between him and the Steelers' end zone. It would have put the Rams up 26-17.

[GameBeforeTheMoney]

Someone else can totally prove me wrong but he was good, very good, but I have seen players without the so-called "alls" who IMO were dominant
and players without the "numbers" who looked dominant ... not a ton of them but I have also seen guys with a good HOF resume--the numbers,
the pro Bowls, but didn't look dominant to me. Jackson is one of them. Meador is another. Isiah Robertson another--to name three Rams.

But i know of a couple Rams who were dominant who had good honors, good numbers but maybe not as good as the others who to me, were better
p;ayers.

That's the conundrum in my mind I have to work out sometimes.

But hay, someone can say they saw the 1973 Cowboys-Rams game and say Jackson was dominant but to me, that was a big outlier...

I agree on all three players. Meador was a smart player, but I think he really benefited from his supporting cast. Had he been on the Eagles instead of the Rams, I think Meador would have been more like Joe Scarpati than a borderline HOF player. Meador isn't spectacular on film. I remember a clip of Gary Garrison catching a pass, stopping, putting on a quick fake and just flying past Meador as if Eddie was in cement.

Jackson was very productive, but was kind of a one-trick pony. To me, Jackson wasn't close to Warfield or Swann (or even Biletnikoff), but he had better numbers than all of those guys. The most remarkable thing to me about Jackson is how long he kept his speed. He didn't have great hands, didn't really come up with the ball in traffic, but he consistently put up 6 TDs and 750 yards well into his 30s. When he left Philly, his production was replaced by Harold Carmichael. When he left LA, Willie Miller came out of nowhere and put up the same numbers as Jackson. It seemed like he was very replaceable...JMO.

Here's the thing about Harold Jackson:

On one hand, he had a playoff career that probably won't raise too many eyebrows. 548 yards on 24 receptions and five receiving touchdowns isn't exactly nothing, but doesn't compare to most of the Hall of Fame receivers of his generation. Though shoutout to his performance in the 1974 NFC Championship Game where he might have come within two yards of appearing in a Super Bowl (he scored his team's only touchdown, and had a 73 yard reception where he was ran out at the two yard line; the latter of which was followed by a goal line pick by his quarterback, and the Rams lost by only four points).

However as mentioned above, Jackson played on the Eagles, Rams, and Patriots for his prime and never played with a prime Hall of Fame quarterback (in Philly, his quarterbacks were Norm Snead, Pete Liske, and John Reaves, in Los Angeles he played with John Hadl for one year, James Harris, Pat Haden, a few games from a young Ron Jaworski, and from Joe Namath at the end of his career, and in New England, his quarterbacks were Steve Grogan, and Matt Kavanaugh).

Even if you think highly of that group of quarterbacks, the only one I named that is currently in Canton is Namath, and he was in the final season of his career with the Rams, and of the others, the only one I see mentioned as anywhere near Canton is Hadl; and Jackson played with him in 1973 and early 74 only (Hadl and Jackson received the only MVP votes that didn't go to O.J. Simpson in his 2,000 yard season on a side note; probably from their own city, but still).

Not to diminish the careers of any Hall of Fame receivers in the 70's at all, but other than Harold Charmichael, just about every other receiver who made the Hall of Fame and who played a significant amount of their career in the 70's had a prime Hall of Fame quarterback throwing to them at some point (Paul Warfield played with Bob Griese for a few years; Lynn Swann and John Stallworth played with Terry Bradshaw; Fred Biletnikoff and Cliff Branch played with Ken Stabler; Drew Pearson played with Roger Staubach and so on).

In addition to the playoff career, Jackson as said up top had the most receptions, receiving yards, and receiving touchdowns in the 1970's, ranked second all time in receiving yardage up through 1983 when he retired, and his reception and receiving touchdown totals were both top ten as well, with everyone who had as many of each as he did through his retirement making Canton (except Art Powell who has been nominated).

Jackson also had more receiving yards, receptions, receiving touchdowns, and yards per reception in the regular season than Drew Pearson, Lynn Swann, John Stallworth, or Cliff Branch. He had as many touchdowns as Fred Biletnikoff, more total yards and per reception, and only ten fewer receptions, and he had only three fewer touchdowns, and 11 fewer receptions than Harold Charmichael.

So his production in aggregate fits in quite nicely I'd say.

Also, I've heard some people say that due to smashmouth schemes, players who got higher receiving yardage and passing yardage were frowned upon for doing so because it was assumed that the yardage was put up only because the team trailed.

Even so, in Jackson's case, he was the top receiver by yardage for four playoff teams in LA (The Rams of whom had the second best regular season record over 1973-1977 only to the Raiders), and a fifth team in the 79 Patriots who went 9-7, but had the second ranked offense by points and only 15th on defense. Jackson also put up top ten yardage on the 73 and 75 Rams and 79 Patriots.

So even if he has no championships, he proved he could contribute for successful teams, and for a number of successful offenses in addition to his raw stats.

From a Seahawks fan, he may fail the eye test, but at a certain point I would argue that the resume could be viewed as good enough. I say he belongs in Canton, but I can see why he wouldn't have stood out to voters in his regular eligibility (he never played in a Super Bowl after all).

Yes - that is true about QBs - and I'm not disagreeing with you but another thing is that also all of those guys are very identifiable with one team. I think that's another thing that hurts Harold Jackson. He doesn't have a whole fanbase behind him. There are other players like that throughout history that might be HOF caliber but played with a lot of teams. Indeed, I think there are several players in the pre-free agency era who just aren't recognized at any level. That isn't always true, but I do think it's a factor with some players. They spent 3 years here, 5 there, maybe 4 in another place. They never stay as that one guy for a franchise, don't have a jersey number retired, that sort of thing.

[Brian wolf]

Good call Jackson ...

John Gilliam was just as much a deep threat as Harold Jackson but was also hurt by going to multiple teams. Had he stayed with the Vikings, instead of going to Atlanta, his numbers might have compared with Jackson's as well, but his career ended with injuries after leaving the Falcons ...