Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Here are Tuggle's numbers year-by-year, from play by plays, reinforcing BS stats doesn't make him an HOF'er. BTW, did anyone here watch Tuggle and think, "wow, i'm watching something special"?

35 71 113 87 110 108 143 133 154 114 92 86 91 33 = 1370

Speilman:
153 125 103 126 138 148 195 137 157 68 = 1350 (4 fewer seasons)

Just for fun
77 167 92 129 115 154 130 110 76 45 130 119 52 79 = 1475 (guess who?? - Steve Nelson, obvious HOF'er right?)

11 100 124 123 132 130 129 162 151 154 142 106 27 = 1491 (in one fewer season than Tuggle, makes Donnie Edwards a clear choice for the hall, Chiefs and Chargers fans pine for those days)

157 128 136 133 99 155 156 153 145 162 165 52 94 = 1735 (so in one fewer season, Zach Thomas had ~300 more tackles, and 5 All-Pro's to Tuggle's 0)

Coaches (some of them) inflate the numbers, or maybe not knowingly inflate, but view tackles differently. The Falcons of that era were universally liberal in "granting" tackles . . . . ergo Scott Case, Buford Jordan, etc, etc. In 1991 Tuggle lead all LB's with 207, Case led all DB's with 162, and all-timer Moe Gardner lead all D Linemen with 96 so apparently, without inflation, the Falcons lead the NFL in tackling at every level!

Nobis was great - probably would be in the Hall if injuries didn't rob him of essentially two full seasons of PT and sap his ability to contribute earlier than it should have.

In Falcon annals - Nobis is the all time single season tackle leader with 290 (inflated number, but he was great) Tuggle isn't second though, you have to go to the awesome Fulton Kuykendall before the coaches will allow you Tuggle on the single season tackle list. The numbers are just total BS.

The individual teams, not the NFL, are responsible for counting some statistics, including tackles.
It is the opinion of many (if not most) that during that era the Falcons inflated those stats (especially Tuggle's) in an attempt to promote something positive about the team.

That is why, rightly or wrongly, Jessie Tuggle is not considered a serious candidate for enshrinement.

Edit: I apologize. When I made this post I had somehow missed Nick's excellent post, above.

JuggernautJ wrote:The individual teams, not the NFL, are responsible for counting some statistics, including tackles.
It is the opinion of many (if not most) that during that era the Falcons inflated those stats (especially Tuggle's) in an attempt to promote something positive about the team.

That is why, rightly or wrongly, Jessie Tuggle is not considered a serious candidate for enshrinement.

Edit: I apologize. When I made this post I had somehow missed Nick's excellent post, above.

I think coaches have a different view on tackles, and most of that stuff began as internal for purposed of grading and so on, but at some point the PR folks began publishing it. So it's possible the coaches kept tackles (as they had for a long time) but the PR people did put it out there to promote players. But this was in the early days. By the 1980s most every team put some sort of tackles in their releases, but some used the gamebook stats, even though in some cases coaches kept stats but never released them, and other coaching staffs didn't mind having the tackles out there.

And this still goes on today. Coaches still keep stats and teams release them with the weekly releases and they are different than the stats in the gamebooks.

Now before I start,I just want to say I'm not trying to start a disagreement ,I'm just going to state my point of view.In 209 games,189 started,he went over 200 tackles in a season twice,he almost did it a third time.True,he doesn't have the high sack numbers and he didn't play in a major football market,Chicago,Green Bay,Pittsburgh,Philly,etc.But I think he is worth of induction,the main reason I feel he hasn't,besides playing in Atlanta ,he was a undrafted free agent.

In one of his books, Dr. Z said he got into arguments in the press box with statkeepers about who got credit for tackles and sacks. Not surprisingly, they would get defensive and warned about calling security...

Why are erroneous and inflated stats still being used?

Not trying to be a pain in the butt here, but, you keep repeating the same numbers without dealing with ANY of the opposing views.

1) The Falcon tackle numbers were inflated
2) IF (huge if) the falcon umber were not inflated they had the most prolific tacklers at all three levels of Defense, so obviously there were just lots of tackles to go around
3) Tackle numbers alone are not a good measure of the status of a Linebacker
4) Nobody watching him (other than yourself apparently) watched Tuggle and thought, "this guy's a hall of famer."

I'll add a few more,
5) You could write a very detailed history of the NFL without mentioning Tuggle
6) Wikipedia has the Falcons without mentioning Tuggle, sure you'll rectify that ASAP
7) Tuggle got ZERO votes, not ONE, EVER, for defensive player of the year, despite guys like the following receiving votes : Marcus Stroud, Trevor Pryce, Jamir Miller, Dwyane Rudd, Donte Jones, Dennis Smith, Carl Lee, Matt Millen, Johnie Poe and Joe Ehrmann to name a few.

So I'll go ahead and craft your response, but I'll start for you, feel free to respond to any of the 7 point above or add a new one I haven't. "He had 200 tackles twice, he had 207 tackles once, he was a tackler and my handle carries his number."

Reaser wrote:Why are erroneous and inflated stats still being used?

Because the Falcons inflated tackles. Take Falcons versus Seahawks in 2001. Take a look at the number of team tackles credited versus the number of tackle opportunities. Seattle had 296 passes completed, 435 rushes attempted but gave up 33 rushing and passing TD's, so 698 chances for tackles. At 252 pashe's completed, 466 rushes, 41 TD's or 677 tackle opportunities. Now look at the team tackle numbers. Reaser you'll find your team was very pure, maybe even overly so. Another way, look at the rate of solos to assists. Tuggle has as many assists, typically, as solos, Wooden had a quarter of an assist for every solo. You'll figure it out really quickly.

Reaser wrote:Why are erroneous and inflated stats still being used?

Acknowledging the possibility I missed your sarcasm, sorry, you and I tend to be on the same page.