It absolutely should be about what a player has done on the field...I'd wager that Marshall had a preponderance of good/great days over bad...even DiMaggio struck out...it has never been about a perfect score has it? Watters and TO were jerks and jerks have a harder time getting in than perceived decent folks, so it is not always about on field performance is it? Glad you have the vote and I do not.
Lester Hayes, Sterling Sharpe, Roger Craig, and Dick Schafrath who opened a ton of holes for Jim Brown are the names that jump out at me...Marshall is known more for running the wrong way but was a terrific edge rusher, as was LC Greenwood. I know little else about the play of the elder nominees, but these guys deserve serious consideration. I for one would pound the table for Hayes and Craig.
Marshall also had a tough day in Super Bowl XI when Art Shell shut him out, no tackles, assists, nada. And the Raiders ran right at him. Great guy, damned good player but the HOF isn't the Hall of Damned good. Lester is long overdue. Craig was a good player and even better person. He will get it. That said, compare his production to that of Ricky Watters, who has only two years left as a Modern-Era player. He had attitude and wasn't a media darling and played for three teams so nobody is "owning" him in terms of advocacy. But if this is supposed to be about what a player does "on the field" then it is hard to stand on the table for Roger and ignore Watters. Similar to, but not as extreme, as people (with short memories) liked Randy Moss and not TO -- they had almost identicle careers. Conveniently forgotten was that Randy quit ON THE FIELD. ("Randy plays on Randy time")...while TO signed a waiver to play in a Super Bowl with a broken leg and played his ass off. To me, selective memories are used to validate misconceptions.
Not to pile on Jim Marshall but a while back out of curiosity I wanted to re-check the 0 tackles stat. So I watched the game and went line by line with the official game book. This is what I ended up with.
Super Bowl XI, 52 rushes, 19 passes, 2 sacks, 6 PATs/FGs. Jim Marshall was on the field for 75 of 79 plays (49, 19, 1, 6) Finishing with 0 of an ANY and ALL stats. A disaster of an outing.
Frank, great stuff as always, but I want to point this out: "He had attitude and wasn't a media darling and played for three teams so nobody is "owning" him in terms of advocacy."
This is such a crucial point and it bothers me immensely that no single voter feels that responsibility to Watters. I tweeted last year to the three reps for his teams to remind them that Watters contributed to all of their franchises, beyond what he did collectively: https://twitter.com/readjack/status/1735057599463113066
Obviously the Niners had their best seasons of the 90s with Watters, but he then went to Philly and helped the Eagles get back to the playoffs for the first time since '92, and then went to Seattle and helped them get back to the playoffs for the first time '88!
The "attitude" dismissal strikes me as more of a press problem than a Watters problem; if he had such a terrible attitude, he would not have fit in with that '94 Niners team, a club that took a real exception to Deion's personality. "For who for what" was Week 1 of a season where the Eagles went to the playoffs and Watters went to the Pro Bowl. His actual on-field production should far outweigh a perceived attitude problem.
Lastly, while some players might get tagged as a system guy, or someone beholden to his teammates or his coaching, Watters's career shows a player who was productive everywhere. 1200 yards from scrimmage on three teams, 10+ TDs on the Niners and Eagles, 5+ yards per touch on the Niners and Seahawks, scrimmage league leader in Philly, playoffs on all three teams, and three touchdowns in a Super Bowl. I hope voters do what's right and put him in the room this year!
Thank you for all the work you do, sir. We really appreciate the insights.
It absolutely should be about what a player has done on the field...I'd wager that Marshall had a preponderance of good/great days over bad...even DiMaggio struck out...it has never been about a perfect score has it? Watters and TO were jerks and jerks have a harder time getting in than perceived decent folks, so it is not always about on field performance is it? Glad you have the vote and I do not.
Me too
Lester Hayes, Sterling Sharpe, Roger Craig, and Dick Schafrath who opened a ton of holes for Jim Brown are the names that jump out at me...Marshall is known more for running the wrong way but was a terrific edge rusher, as was LC Greenwood. I know little else about the play of the elder nominees, but these guys deserve serious consideration. I for one would pound the table for Hayes and Craig.
Marshall also had a tough day in Super Bowl XI when Art Shell shut him out, no tackles, assists, nada. And the Raiders ran right at him. Great guy, damned good player but the HOF isn't the Hall of Damned good. Lester is long overdue. Craig was a good player and even better person. He will get it. That said, compare his production to that of Ricky Watters, who has only two years left as a Modern-Era player. He had attitude and wasn't a media darling and played for three teams so nobody is "owning" him in terms of advocacy. But if this is supposed to be about what a player does "on the field" then it is hard to stand on the table for Roger and ignore Watters. Similar to, but not as extreme, as people (with short memories) liked Randy Moss and not TO -- they had almost identicle careers. Conveniently forgotten was that Randy quit ON THE FIELD. ("Randy plays on Randy time")...while TO signed a waiver to play in a Super Bowl with a broken leg and played his ass off. To me, selective memories are used to validate misconceptions.
Not to pile on Jim Marshall but a while back out of curiosity I wanted to re-check the 0 tackles stat. So I watched the game and went line by line with the official game book. This is what I ended up with.
Super Bowl XI, 52 rushes, 19 passes, 2 sacks, 6 PATs/FGs. Jim Marshall was on the field for 75 of 79 plays (49, 19, 1, 6) Finishing with 0 of an ANY and ALL stats. A disaster of an outing.
Great insights as always, thanks.
Frank, great stuff as always, but I want to point this out: "He had attitude and wasn't a media darling and played for three teams so nobody is "owning" him in terms of advocacy."
This is such a crucial point and it bothers me immensely that no single voter feels that responsibility to Watters. I tweeted last year to the three reps for his teams to remind them that Watters contributed to all of their franchises, beyond what he did collectively: https://twitter.com/readjack/status/1735057599463113066
Obviously the Niners had their best seasons of the 90s with Watters, but he then went to Philly and helped the Eagles get back to the playoffs for the first time since '92, and then went to Seattle and helped them get back to the playoffs for the first time '88!
The "attitude" dismissal strikes me as more of a press problem than a Watters problem; if he had such a terrible attitude, he would not have fit in with that '94 Niners team, a club that took a real exception to Deion's personality. "For who for what" was Week 1 of a season where the Eagles went to the playoffs and Watters went to the Pro Bowl. His actual on-field production should far outweigh a perceived attitude problem.
Lastly, while some players might get tagged as a system guy, or someone beholden to his teammates or his coaching, Watters's career shows a player who was productive everywhere. 1200 yards from scrimmage on three teams, 10+ TDs on the Niners and Eagles, 5+ yards per touch on the Niners and Seahawks, scrimmage league leader in Philly, playoffs on all three teams, and three touchdowns in a Super Bowl. I hope voters do what's right and put him in the room this year!
Thank you for all the work you do, sir. We really appreciate the insights.
Jack