Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Cliff Branch has the distinction of being on all three Raiders Super Bowl teams, and he put up some great numbers, leading the NFL in post season yards and receptions when he retired.

Do you think he should be in?

Yes, absolutely. For me, there are four 70s era WRs who are pretty comparable to each other not in who should be. Branch is one of them along with Harold Jackson, Harold Carmichael, and Drew Pearson.

And all should have gotten in before Lynn Swann or John Stallworth.

And all should have gotten in before Lynn Swann or John Stallworth.

Absolutely.

What always struck me about the Swann/Stallworth inductions is that... Swann gets in mainly on post-season heroics. Then the following year the voters realize... "Well gee, the other WR on those Steelers teams had far better numbers. I guess we oughtta get him in too!"

Yes.
Talk about passing the "eyeball test."

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... anCl00.htm

For similar players to Branch, I think Harold Jackson was better, and he's not in yet.

Stanley Morgan was a very similar player to Branch. I would question why Branch should go in while Morgan stays out. Branch has the three SB rings, but he wasn't a particularly notable playoff performer considering how many playoff games he played.

Shrevedude wrote:Cliff Branch has the distinction of being on all three Raiders Super Bowl teams, and he put up some great numbers, leading the NFL in post season yards and receptions when he retired.

Do you think he should be in?

Branch's fourth quarter touchdown gave Oakland the lead back in their 1974 playoff game against Miami--until Benny Malone got it back for the Dolphins--which led to the Sea of Hands.

He played 14 seasons, and led his team in receiving yards 6 times, TD receptions 4 times. That's led his TEAM, and it's not like he was playing alongside Jerry Rice all those years. I don't know, the 1970's are tough, but Branch looks like a bit of a compiler.

Harold Jackson certainly looks like he belongs -- all those years with a real mixed bag of quarterbacks, and he put up those great numbers. But the other guys -- Pearson, Branch, Morgan, Carmichael -- I don't know how you separate one from the other, they all look very similar in terms of their candidacy.

Jeremy Crowhurst wrote:He played 14 seasons, and led his team in receiving yards 6 times, TD receptions 4 times. That's led his TEAM, and it's not like he was playing alongside Jerry Rice all those years...

Not to be disagreeable but um... Fred Biletnikoff?
I don't think there are many WRs, even in the HoF, who would consistently finish ahead of #25 in receptions
and TDs.

What I remember most about Branch and Biletnikoff was what an effective pair of teammates they were.
I'd be hard pressed to think of a better WR combo between say, Lenny Moore and Ray Berry and perhaps
the Marks Brothers.
Maybe I'm over-romanticizing things but I remember the Raiders as having some damn good receivers int he 70's.

And that's not to take away anything from others mentioned.
They are all worthy of consideration for enshrinement.

I think Branch belongs in the HOF. He performed well for a long time for a successful team. If you are into stats, he has good ones.