Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

I've heard both arguements,what a team's record is,or an player's individual performance over time.What do ya'll think?

falconfan58 wrote:I've heard both arguements,what a team's record is,or an player's individual performance over time.What do ya'll think?

It's both items you mentioned, among others. A standout player on a consistent winner is always helpful, and said player usually has a long, storied career. Gale Sayers was one of the few exceptions, playing in just 68 games with a losing team. In his case, Sayers was spectacular and unique enough to earn induction. Mike Kenn was a terrific player, but his case would have been helped if the Falcons had done more damage in the postseason.

We also can't discount something a great player did which was different in some way. Curley Culp was a former college wrestler who later starred in Houston's 3-4 defense, as the Oilers rose from losers to playoff participants. Also valuable is whether that individual is a career franchise leader, and which franchise we're talking about. The all time passing leader for the New York Giants is a more credible distinction than the passing leader of the Arizona Cardinals.

I don't think it should matter where you played,but it does to some.Larry Wilson,considered to be one of the best safties ever,but where did he play?For the St.louis Cardinals.and to my knowledge,I don't believe they made the post season when he played.But that didn't affect what the voters thought of him.By the way,the first owner of the Falcons,and most of his decisions regarding the team ,weren't very good.

falconfan58 wrote:I don't think it should matter where you played,but it does to some.Larry Wilson,considered to be one of the best safties ever,but where did he play?For the St.louis Cardinals.and to my knowledge,I don't believe they made the post season when he played.But that didn't affect what the voters thought of him.By the way,the first owner of the Falcons,and most of his decisions regarding the team ,weren't very good.

Wilson played most of his career before the merger, so that affected his postseason opportunities. If you play for a storied franchise, and pass other greats, along with winning, that has traction. One of the exceptions is Tony Romo. Did everything right in the regular season, passing the likes of Staubach and Aikman, but fell so far short of what those HOF players achieved in the postseason. I can't support a QB who had an eventual HOF TE, HOF WR, and HOF DE, and couldn't even reach a conference title game.

L.C. Greenwood wrote:

falconfan58 wrote:I don't think it should matter where you played,but it does to some.Larry Wilson,considered to be one of the best safties ever,but where did he play?For the St.louis Cardinals.and to my knowledge,I don't believe they made the post season when he played.But that didn't affect what the voters thought of him.By the way,the first owner of the Falcons,and most of his decisions regarding the team ,weren't very good.

Wilson played most of his career before the merger, so that affected his postseason opportunities. If you play for a storied franchise, and pass other greats, along with winning, that has traction. One of the exceptions is Tony Romo. Did everything right in the regular season, passing the likes of Staubach and Aikman, but fell so far short of what those HOF players achieved in the postseason. I can't support a QB who had an eventual HOF TE, HOF WR, and HOF DE, and couldn't even reach a conference title game.

As I've pointed out before, prior to 1967 you didn't "make the postseason" unless you won your division. Larry Wilson's Cardinals almost won the Eastern Division in 1964. I think they might have beaten the Colts in the 1964 NFL Championship game the same way the Browns did. That's another What If?

Just wondering,not arguing,what's a storied franchise?In your eyes

falconfan58 wrote:Just wondering,not arguing,what's a storied franchise?In your eyes

Would have to be a sports franchise with multiple world championships which rank highly among the current clubs in the league. It's not just the age of a franchise, but the achievement. The higher achieving franchises tend to have more great players, so if a recent franchise leader passes other HOF players, that has more traction for me.

So,how long since they last won a title is the limit,if there is one?

falconfan58 wrote:So,how long since they last won a title is the limit,if there is one?

Don't know if their is a limit. The Miami Dolphins have struggled for years after Dan Marino retired, but I would rate them well above the Cincinnat Bengals in terms of accomplishment and prestige.

I would put the Packers first,since they won a Super Bowl a few years ago,and the Browns or Lions last