Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

sluggermatt15 wrote:

sheajets wrote:I do agree with some of these guys, heck I even see the reason for Namath. Though he was such a mega star he has to be there (I'm biased too)

Swann I never saw as having a HOF career but he was such a key cog in a dynasty offense and numerous clutch playoff performances (the NFL films highlights that many grew up watching) him being there is fine

Grimm I don't get. When he was healthy, he was a Hall of Fame player. I saw him be outright great long enough to put him in

The context of when he played only makes sense. When his career ended, how well did he rank at the time? You're right, Joe was dazzling when he retired. His numbers were not great at all, but then again, the rules did not favor passing games like they do today. He was also a big part of football history. Had his Jets not beaten the Colts, who knows how the NFL is today?

Some of his numbers were good, though- YPA, yards per completion, sack rate and team winning percentage with him starting. Outside of those upsets they had vs Minnesota and L.A. with Bob Davis at quarterback, the Jets were hideous when Namath was not available.

JeffreyMiller wrote:Hornung also definitely belongs. I am really quite surprised that these two get brought up in this type of conversation.

Hornung's career has too many gaps. His pre-Lombardi seasons are nothing special, he peaks from 59-61, injured and replaced by Tom Moore in 62, suspended in 63, average in 64 with a terrible kicking performance, his 65 season is almost a wash-out but he came on at the end of the year and in the postseason, and 66 he is injured again and retires. When you look at it from a HOF perspective, you are putting Hornung in based on his 59-61 seasons. Were those seasons strong enough to overshadow the other 7 years of (for lack of a better word) workmanlike performance? Not in my opinion.

I would tend to agree on Hornung - someone on another board compared him to the HOVG's Don Perkins. I would say HOVG for both.