Seniors

[SeahawkFever]

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 ...

Looked up John Gilliam's career. He had slightly more yards per reception than Jackson, and was a four time pro bowler himself. Had he put up three more seasons of 1,000 yards and eight touchdowns, then I could see why you would say his resume would be similar to Jackson.

It's true that the Falcons he joined in 1976 were worse than Minnesota (who made their fourth Super Bowl that year), but if he stayed in Minnesota, he'd be playing with an aging Fran Tarkenton after 76. Tarkenton played only nine games in 1977 (I presume due to injury?), and in 1978 he led the league in passing yards, but his efficiency metrics were more average.

Sounds like another receiver in the 70's who had an excellent career for himself.

[SeahawkFever]

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).

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.

I could see why having your prime years split between three different teams hurts; especially before free agency. You mention retired numbers, well in Jackson's case in particular, he played some prime years for the Rams, and wore number 29. A number that has since been retired for Eric Dickerson.

[Bryan]

I could see why having your prime years split between three different teams hurts; especially before free agency. You mention retired numbers, well in Jackson's case in particular, he played some prime years for the Rams, and wore number 29. A number that has since been retired for Eric Dickerson.

I don't think the switching of teams would have hurt Jackson had he/his team achieved something noteworthy at some point. Like if the 70's Rams would have won a Super Bowl....as it was, those Rams teams had an underachiever reputation. The Eagles made the SB with Carmichael and Charlie Smith, the Rams made the SB with Waddy and Dennard, the Pats made the SB with Morgan and Fryar....all after Jackson departed. Yeah, its a pretty thin causal relationship, but I don't think Jackson really elevated his team's accomplishments.

[Bob Gill]

Tarkenton played only nine games in 1977 (I presume due to injury?)

Right, he broke his leg in the ninth game.

[SeahawkFever]

I could see why having your prime years split between three different teams hurts; especially before free agency. You mention retired numbers, well in Jackson's case in particular, he played some prime years for the Rams, and wore number 29. A number that has since been retired for Eric Dickerson.

I don't think the switching of teams would have hurt Jackson had he/his team achieved something noteworthy at some point. Like if the 70's Rams would have won a Super Bowl....as it was, those Rams teams had an underachiever reputation. The Eagles made the SB with Carmichael and Charlie Smith, the Rams made the SB with Waddy and Dennard, the Pats made the SB with Morgan and Fryar....all after Jackson departed. Yeah, its a pretty thin causal relationship, but I don't think Jackson really elevated his team's accomplishments.

First off, my apologies for a long reply, had a lot of thoughts.

I could totally see this perspective too.

It's possible for someone to play very well, and for their team to not to go as far as they could have. In Harold Jackson's case, he was a part of six playoff teams in his career where he started regularly; three of them in Los Angeles made the conference championship game, and the other three (one of then in 1978 in New England) went one and done.

He played very well for quite a few years, but I could see why the production he put up wouldn't have stood out as much on its own (even if he has the all time rankings up to his time that he does), and his teams weren't winning it all.

A point of clarification from earlier: The reason I brought up his quarterbacks is because whenever I see people talk about the Rams of the 70's, they seem to talk about them as a pretty good team that lacked a franchise quarterback, and those would've been the players throwing to him and his fellow receivers.

Jackson may not have elevated his teams performance, but at the same time I look at the list of Hall of Fame receivers, and I see a number of receivers who made the Hall of Fame (or who will make it in among more recent players) whose teams also never won it all even if they elevated their team's performance, and one that was relatively in the same generation as Harold Jackson who also never played in a Super Bowl in Charlie Joiner.

On a side note: One thought I've had over the years is that receiver and cornerback are the two positions where not having team success could have less weight than some others in a Hall of Fame discussion because both can draw attention to part of the field.

A receiver can be very good, opposing teams can scheme plays around stopping that player, and if the rest of the offense doesn't capitalize on the coverage that the first player draws, then the offense could prove easy to disrupt by opposing defenses, and the inverse could be said about opposing cornerbacks; offenses could throw to the other side of the field and find more success throwing on other players. Call it a weird way of looking at it, but it's something I've thought about receivers and corners.

One other thing: You mentioned that the Eagles, Rams, and Patriots each ended up making the Super Bowl after Jackson left them. You are correct, but I would argue that in at least two of those cases, this isn't exactly a Jared Goff-Matthew Stafford situation; Where one player is replaced and the team immediately improved significantly (no knock on Jared Goff, but let's face it, LA won it all the season after moving on from him). It's not like he left, and the team from his last year immediately went to the Super Bowl without him the next year.

Jackson's last season as an Eagle was in 1972. The Eagles made the Super Bowl in 1980. That was eight seasons after he was traded, and a look at the starters for the 1980 Eagles roster will reveal that only two starters from that Super Bowl team were on the last team with Jackson in 1972. That team also had a different head coach, GM, and defensive coordinator in 1980 than in 1972.

As for the Patriots, Jackson's last year there (as well as his last as a starter) was 1981.

A gap of only four years instead of eight, but still, the Patriots in 1985 that made the Super Bowl had ten starters that weren't on the team in 1981. Much like the Eagles, the Patriots also had a different head coach, GM, and defensive coordinator in 1981 than in 1985. The Patriots did admittedly immediately improve by record in 1982 as opposed to 81 (5-4 vs 2-14), but their offense was worse by points (ranking 15th in 1981 vs 21st in 1982), but improved significantly on defense (22nd in 1981 vs 7th in 1982).

The Rams who Jackson played his last season for in 1977, you could certainly say that the bulk of the team that played with Harold Jackson made the Super Bowl in 1979 without him (all but three starters, though Jackson never played with Vince Ferragamo).

However I think you could also argue that the NFC was a bit "down" in 1979 compared to other years. A look back at the Rams of 1973-1977 will show that the Rams lost the playoff games that they did to the Cowboys or Vikings every season Jackson was there.

Dallas in 1979 were admittedly an 11-5 team, and they had a still excellent season from Roger Staubach (albeit in his last season), but their defense was only 12th ranked by points. Say what you want about point differential, but the Cowboys in 79 had a point differential of +58; worse than four AFC teams (coincidentally enough including the 79 Patriots who only were 9-7, but outscored their opponents by 85 points).

Minnesota missed the playoffs at 7-9 and were in transition, with most of the Purple People Eaters gone or finishing their careers, and Tommy Kramer having his first season as a full time starter.

As for NFC teams of the early 80's, Philly was a year away from their Super Bowl appearance; they were also 11-5, and their point differential was one worse than Dallas. San Francisco had just drafted Joe Montana, but he sat behind Steve DeBerg. San Fran was only a 2-14 team in 1979. Washington had Joe Theismann and John Riggins, but hadn't drafted Art Monk, the Hogs, or some defensive players from their 1982 Super Bowl championship team, they were 10-6 with a +53 point differential.

The 1979 NFC had a winning percentage of 30.77% vs the 1979 AFC; the worst ever by one conference vs the other since the merger in a season.

The Rams of 1979; while suffering from several injuries if I'm not mistaken, didn't exactly have that amazing a season either. Their record was 9-7, and their point differential was +14.

They beat the aforementioned Cowboys, and then beat the Buccaneers in the 1979 NFC Championship Game.

A Bucs team that was 10-6 with an excellent defense (in particular defensive player of the year, Lee Roy Selmon), but one that only had the 21st ranked offense by points out of 28, and I've heard some say that Doug Williams was hurt in that game (admittedly he threw only about half of his team's passes in that game).

This is not to knock Tampa Bay who deserves credit for rebounding from their franchise's record losing streak of 1976 and 1977 to make the playoffs; let alone win a playoff game vs Philly), or to take anything away from the Rams in 1979, who made the Super Bowl after injuries and a bad start, and played a competitive game in the Super Bowl vs Pittsburgh (leading in the fourth quarter even), but the NFC that they made it out of was rather down in comparison to the years before it in my opinion.

On a side note: The following year, the Rams had a better regular season in 1980 (they had Vince Ferragamo for a whole season, went 11-5, and had the third best point differential in the NFC at +135), and proceeded to lose to the Cowboys who had a similar defensive ranking, but a number one offense, and Danny White at quarterback.

If the 79 Rams could make it out of the conference they were in, then could some of the teams Chuck Knox coached, and Jackson was a part of have also made a Super Bowl if they had a conference where the best teams they faced in the NFC Championship Games were of similar caliber to the 79 Bucs? As opposed to the Vikings in 74 and 76, and the Cowboys in 75 who I would argue might have been better than that Bucs team (not defensively, but at least in terms of well roundedness as all three were top ten on both sides of the ball in their respective years).

Not to suggest they are beating the Steelers or Raiders when they were more in their prime, but that would at least have been making a Super Bowl.

One last thought I've had:

Obviously championships are championships at the end of the day, and not that this should be viewed with the same weight as a championship, but one thing that I don't see anybody mentioning when they talk about the Hall of Fame cases of NFL players is how many times in their careers that they were part of a top offense or defense.

In Jackson's case, his years in Philly were admittedly on awful offenses (average in 1969, but well below in 1970 and 71, and last in 1972 most notably), and while he was on some other offenses that were league average in 1974, 1975, and 1981, he also was the top receiver by yardage for a number one offense in 1973, another two top five offenses in the 1977 Rams, and 1979 Patriots (79 being second ranked), and had only 28 fewer yards than Ron Jessie in 1976 for the Rams, and had 77 fewer yards than Stanley Morgan for the 1978 Patriots; which were also top five offenses. He was also the second receiver behind Morgan for the second ranked 1980 Patriots offense by a bigger margin of yardage.

I mention this because unless we are talking about someone who played both ways in the first few decades of the league, then an offensive player doesn't play defense, and vice versa, and I think those ranks are worth acknowledging because those are over seasons, and thus, longer samples.

Not every year of your career is going to be on a great offense, but if you are a part of a few of them in your career, then I think it could be another thing worth acknowledging in a case.

Don't get me wrong, I think you brought up some very valid points. If Harold Jackson wouldn't make the Hall of Fame for you, then I definitely see why you would cite a lack of team success like you did.

But I just had some things I noticed and ideas I've had that I wanted to share. What do you think?

[GameBeforeTheMoney]

I'm not quite old enough to remember Harold Jackson with the Rams - I do remember him with the Patriots. And those teams I associate with Stanley Morgan at receiver more than Harold Jackson. I like Jackson from looking at his accomplishments, however.

I do feel a need to point out that Charlie Joiner was at one time the NFL's all-time leading receiver. That's a big reason why he's in the HOF and deserves it. I'm not quite sure if he retired as the all-time leader but at one point he was. And a really clutch 3rd down guy.

SeahawkFever's points about defensive schemes, IMHO, are a very overlooked part of the whole process. That's the problem about looking at just stats. To me, the best players disrupt or impact (whatever you want to call it) at a high level. Those impacts aren't always as obvious in football as they are in other sports.

[GameBeforeTheMoney]

I could see why having your prime years split between three different teams hurts; especially before free agency. You mention retired numbers, well in Jackson's case in particular, he played some prime years for the Rams, and wore number 29. A number that has since been retired for Eric Dickerson.

I don't think the switching of teams would have hurt Jackson had he/his team achieved something noteworthy at some point. Like if the 70's Rams would have won a Super Bowl....as it was, those Rams teams had an underachiever reputation. The Eagles made the SB with Carmichael and Charlie Smith, the Rams made the SB with Waddy and Dennard, the Pats made the SB with Morgan and Fryar....all after Jackson departed. Yeah, its a pretty thin causal relationship, but I don't think Jackson really elevated his team's accomplishments.

That might be true to an extent. But also - and we see this all the time - a guy is fantastic on one team and isn't on another. Jackson's career - he was solid overall with several teams. And that was over quite a long period of time.

Clearly though, like if he made a game-winning play in the NFC Championship when the Rams narrowly lost to the Vikings on a day that he already had well over 100 yds receiving, he'd probably get more recognition. A lot of guys need a career defining play or two - or in some cases, a career defining win for their team to get into the HOF.

[Bryan]

That might be true to an extent. But also - and we see this all the time - a guy is fantastic on one team and isn't on another. Jackson's career - he was solid overall with several teams. And that was over quite a long period of time.

Clearly though, like if he made a game-winning play in the NFC Championship when the Rams narrowly lost to the Vikings on a day that he already had well over 100 yds receiving, he'd probably get more recognition. A lot of guys need a career defining play or two - or in some cases, a career defining win for their team to get into the HOF.

My general memory of those Rams teams is that Ground Chuck kind of ground to a halt in the postseason every year, but looking at the games the Rams lost in the postseason, many times Jackson was like the only Ram to score a TD. As you said, there isn't a career-defining play/game/season for Jackson. He was kind of like the Art Monk of deep WRs.

[SeahawkFever]

I'm not quite old enough to remember Harold Jackson with the Rams - I do remember him with the Patriots. And those teams I associate with Stanley Morgan at receiver more than Harold Jackson. I like Jackson from looking at his accomplishments, however.

I do feel a need to point out that Charlie Joiner was at one time the NFL's all-time leading receiver. That's a big reason why he's in the HOF and deserves it. I'm not quite sure if he retired as the all-time leader but at one point he was. And a really clutch 3rd down guy.

SeahawkFever's points about defensive schemes, IMHO, are a very overlooked part of the whole process. That's the problem about looking at just stats. To me, the best players disrupt or impact (whatever you want to call it) at a high level. Those impacts aren't always as obvious in football as they are in other sports.

I definitely would associate Morgan with the Patriots in those years. After all, not just stats, but going back to what we said earlier, he played all but his last season in New England.

Either way though, those Patriots teams of 1978, 79, and 80 have an average record, but were top five offenses all three years, and Jackson and Morgan are labeled one of the best receiving duos in the league at that time by some accounts, so that's why I brought that up.

As for Joiner, not a knock on him by any means. He is a deserving Hall of Famer, and did indeed retire with the most receiving yards. I was just mentioning him to say that there is precedent for a receiver making it to Canton while not ever playing in a Super Bowl. Like Jackson, he also was a receiver in some top offenses (in his case with the Air Coryell Chargers of the early 80's).

Jackson also didn't reach a Super Bowl, and while he didn't retire as the all time leader in receiving yards through 1983 when he retired, he did rank second, and for that matter everyone who has as many receiving yards, receiving touchdowns, or receptions as he did through 1983 is in Canton except for Art Powell (who had three more touchdowns, and was recently nominated if I'm not mistaken).

[SeahawkFever]

That might be true to an extent. But also - and we see this all the time - a guy is fantastic on one team and isn't on another. Jackson's career - he was solid overall with several teams. And that was over quite a long period of time.

Clearly though, like if he made a game-winning play in the NFC Championship when the Rams narrowly lost to the Vikings on a day that he already had well over 100 yds receiving, he'd probably get more recognition. A lot of guys need a career defining play or two - or in some cases, a career defining win for their team to get into the HOF.

My general memory of those Rams teams is that Ground Chuck kind of ground to a halt in the postseason every year, but looking at the games the Rams lost in the postseason, many times Jackson was like the only Ram to score a TD. As you said, there isn't a career-defining play/game/season for Jackson. He was kind of like the Art Monk of deep WRs.

Yep, you're referring to the 1974 NFC Championship Game I believe. Jackson scored the Rams only touchdown in that one, and had another 73 yard reception where he was ran out of bounds at the two yard line (his quarterback James Harris proceeded to throw a pick at the goal line), and the Rams lost by one score.

As for Art Monk, he made the Hall of Fame, but if I"m not mistaken, it took him several years to get there?