Drew Pearson and Tom Flores--still waiting on contributor

[Brian wolf]

I am happy and felt both were deserving.

The only knock on Pearson was his TD totals but he mostly went over the middle making it easier for his teammates like Hill, Richards and Johnson to score TDs.

Yes, Flores was bad in Seattle but had to deal with Davis's meddling and moving the team as well. He loses Stabler, loses Pastorini to injury and has to insert Dick Wood clone-Marc Wilson into the line-up when Plunkett is hurt or Davis wants him in. We all know the Davis-Allen feud as well, probably because of Allen's fumbling problems which lead to Bo Jackson joining the team. Despite Peyton Place, the Raiders still are the only AFC team to win championships in the 80s ...

I would have preferred Parker or Coryell but I am fine with Flores.

If that list is true about the seniors, I am sad for the older players like Lewellen, Latone, Nesser, Dilweg, Emerson, and especially Wistert, who I predicted for 2023 after Gradishar or Branch ...

[rewing84]

As far as I'm concerned, two more terrible awful no-good choices.

Who would have been your choices

[JohnH19]

I’m fine with Pearson who was absolutely one of the two or three best, and certainly the most clutch, receiver of his era.

Flores’ record, on the other hand, doesn’t impress me nearly as much as three coaches who never won a Super Bowl. Heck, two of them never even got to one. Give me Marty Schottenheimer, Don Coryell and, to a slightly lesser extent, Dan Reeves over Flores. All three had success at all of their stops. Marty, in particular, won big consistently in Cleveland, Kansas City and San Diego but was dogged by unbelievably bad luck in the playoffs. Dan Snyder’s biggest mistake, among many, may have been letting Marty go after only one season in Washington. His replacement didn’t work out too well.

[SixtiesFan]

I’m fine with Pearson who was absolutely one of the two or three best, and certainly the most clutch, receiver of his era.

Flores’ record, on the other hand, doesn’t impress me nearly as much as three coaches who never won a Super Bowl. Heck, two of them never even got to one. Give me Marty Schottenheimer, Don Coryell and, to a slightly lesser extent, Dan Reeves over Flores. All three had success at all of their stops. Marty, in particular, won big consistently in Cleveland, Kansas City and San Diego but was dogged by unbelievably bad luck in the playoffs. Dan Snyder’s biggest mistake, among many, may have been letting Marty go after only one season in Washington. His replacement didn’t work out too well.

Chuck Knox is another with success with three teams, many playoff appearances but no Super Bowl. Knox had a better record than Flores, it could be argued.

Has Chuck Knox ever been up for HOF consideration?

[sluggermatt15]

I’m fine with Pearson who was absolutely one of the two or three best, and certainly the most clutch, receiver of his era.

Flores’ record, on the other hand, doesn’t impress me nearly as much as three coaches who never won a Super Bowl. Heck, two of them never even got to one. Give me Marty Schottenheimer, Don Coryell and, to a slightly lesser extent, Dan Reeves over Flores. All three had success at all of their stops. Marty, in particular, won big consistently in Cleveland, Kansas City and San Diego but was dogged by unbelievably bad luck in the playoffs. Dan Snyder’s biggest mistake, among many, may have been letting Marty go after only one season in Washington. His replacement didn’t work out too well.

Chuck Knox is another with success with three teams, many playoff appearances but no Super Bowl. Knox had a better record than Flores, it could be argued.

Has Chuck Knox ever been up for HOF consideration?

Regular season, Knox won nearly twice the number of games as Flores - 186 to 97. Knox was also a three-time coach of the year. Flores? Zero times. Knox took three different teams to the playoffs, two of them to the Conference Championship game.

It seems like with coaches, a Super Bowl makes all the difference in the world. I remember people talking about Andy Reid. Then when he finally won one last year, everyone is saying he's a lock for the PFHOF. In my opinion, there's a lot more to a great coach than winning a championship. I think Flores is a weaker candidate compared to guys like Knox and Coryell.

[JohnH19]

I’m fine with Pearson who was absolutely one of the two or three best, and certainly the most clutch, receiver of his era.

Flores’ record, on the other hand, doesn’t impress me nearly as much as three coaches who never won a Super Bowl. Heck, two of them never even got to one. Give me Marty Schottenheimer, Don Coryell and, to a slightly lesser extent, Dan Reeves over Flores. All three had success at all of their stops. Marty, in particular, won big consistently in Cleveland, Kansas City and San Diego but was dogged by unbelievably bad luck in the playoffs. Dan Snyder’s biggest mistake, among many, may have been letting Marty go after only one season in Washington. His replacement didn’t work out too well.

Chuck Knox is another with success with three teams, many playoff appearances but no Super Bowl. Knox had a better record than Flores, it could be argued.

Has Chuck Knox ever been up for HOF consideration?

I agree with Chuck Knox being a legitimate candidate. I knew I was forgetting someone.

[Jay Z]

As a Packers fan, I have always thought the team is a reflection of their head coach. I think it's difficult to win with a mediocre or worse coach, and it shows up fairly quickly at the pro level.

Even observing other teams, I felt there was a clear difference in how the Rams carried themselves with Chuck Knox and with Ray Malavasi.

Consequently, it's difficult for me to say that the Raiders could have achieved the same results with Joe Schmo holding a clipboard. John Rauch left what was a difficult situation after Davis left and came back. Madden retired for personal reasons. Then there was Flores. I think, absenting other evidence, you rate Flores on how the team did and leave any other projections out of it.

[NWebster]

If they wanted a Cowboy it should have been Howley if they wanted a WR it should have been Shofner and I'd have gone Buddy Parker over Flores. The Coors commercial makes me think that being Hispanic may have been a factor.

[Brian wolf]

Unfortunately, not to sound obvious but what hurts Shofner is the same as Branch ...

Too many Giants and Raiders from their own teams/eras ... There are five Giants, not counting coaches and the Raiders may have more HOF players from one 70s champion than any other team ...

[Gary Najman]

If they wanted a Cowboy it should have been Howley if they wanted a WR it should have been Shofner and I'd have gone Buddy Parker over Flores. The Coors commercial makes me think that being Hispanic may have been a factor.

I agree, but if they wanted a 70s WR, it should have been the other Rams #29, the other Harold, and I’m a Cowboys fan.

The thing against Pearson (IMHO) is that in his last five or six years, Tony Hill was the main WR for the Cowboys (and yes, I do remember Pearson two TDs against the Falcons in the Duel at Dixie). Sure, Jackson stopped to be the main WR at the same time with the Patriots, but he had been a top WR for nine seasons for the Eagles and Rams, and remained productive in New England, plus his yards per catch were high for his era. But I also believe if Eric Wright hadn’t grab Pearson by the horse collar in The Catch game and Dallas had gotten at least a FG and went to the Super Bowl, Pearson would have been enshrined before.