Is Dez Bryant a lock for the HOF?

joseephuss · Mar 17, 2021

ChuckA1 said:
Respectfully Amigo, did you ever watch Pearson play? If you had, I don't think you'd be describing his play that way. The Cowboys were a finese team in those days. They weren't a ground and pound team like the 90's. Pearson was a great receiver and downfield blocker. He had tenacity and heart, and was a team leader for several years. You can't always judge a player by total yards and catches.

Dallas pretty much was a top ten team in rushing attempts during Pearson's career. They even led the league in rushing attempts in a couple of those seasons.

joseephuss · Mar 17, 2021

CowboyRoy said:
He was a great receiver. But HOF great? I don’t see it. I don’t see the consistent great numbers.

6 years of 3 tds or less. 2 1000 yard seasons and it was barely 1000.

62 receptions was his most in a season.

he was a great deep threat but I don’t see the HOF.

A 1000 yards was not the standard in the era in which he played. He led the league with 870 yards in 1977. That means getting 800 yards in a season were good numbers at that time. And half his career was played during a 14 game schedule. He finished in the top ten for yards 5 times and 3 times in the top five.

OmerV · Mar 17, 2021

3-4 very good years, with a couple of those being outstanding, makes for a nice career, but not a HOF career.

joseephuss · Mar 17, 2021

OmerV said:
3-4 very good years, with a couple of those being outstanding, makes for a nice career, but not a HOF career.

I agree. It isn't a bad thing he isn't going to make the HoF. So few players do. He was a useful player for Dallas. I do think he could have been better(and still not make the HoF), but fortunately he wasn't worse. The Cowboys got some good stuff from him. I disagree with anyone who posts that he didn't work hard or got paid and stopped working. I think he worked very hard in the off season. I just don't think he worked smartly or efficiently. He and the team should have had him working with route running specialist every season he was in the league. He may have never become the best route runner, but I think it is an area he could have improved upon even just a little. Sometimes a little is all it takes and his the difference in getting open or being covered.

OmerV · Mar 17, 2021

joseephuss said:
I agree. It isn't a bad thing he isn't going to make the HoF. So few players do. He was a useful player for Dallas. I do think he could have been better(and still not make the HoF), but fortunately he wasn't worse. The Cowboys got some good stuff from him. I disagree with anyone who posts that he didn't work hard or got paid and stopped working. I think he worked very hard in the off season. I just don't think he worked smartly or efficiently. He and the team should have had him working with route running specialist every season he was in the league. He may have never become the best route runner, but I think it is an area he could have improved upon even just a little. Sometimes a little is all it takes and his the difference in getting open or being covered.

I agree. I think he worked hard and played hard in games, but I've always suspected that because he grew up being able to dominate everyone around him with his athleticism he never really appreciated the need for precision and perfecting the subtleties and nuances of the position, at the NFL level where his great athleticism wasn't quite as overwhelming.

Of course, that's not all on him. Like you indicated, the team has responsibility for instilling that as well.

CowboyRoy · Mar 17, 2021

joseephuss said:
A 1000 yards was not the standard in the era in which he played. He led the league with 870 yards in 1977. That means getting 800 yards in a season were good numbers at that time. And half his career was played during a 14 game schedule. He finished in the top ten for yards 5 times and 3 times in the top five.

6 of his 10 seasons he had 3 TD's or less. That just doesnt cut it. Those arent HOF type numbers. Even in his era.

Its no wonder he was bypassed so many times. Until of course he started crying like a heart broken baby. Which seems to be what gets you what you want today.

cowboysfan99 · Mar 17, 2021

0% chance

kskboys · Mar 18, 2021

CowboyRoy said:
6 of his 10 seasons he had 3 TD's or less. That just doesnt cut it. Those arent HOF type numbers. Even in his era.

Its no wonder he was bypassed so many times. Until of course he started crying like a heart broken baby. Which seems to be what gets you what you want today.

Lynn Swann had 51 career TD's. Pearson had 50.

You are using completely wrong parameters in judging players.

CowboyRoy · Mar 18, 2021

kskboys said:
Lynn Swann had 51 career TD's. Pearson had 50.

You are using completely wrong parameters in judging players.

I just have a lot of respect for the HOF. I dont think every really good player should get in. HOF should be for the very best players of their generation.

kskboys · Mar 18, 2021

CowboyRoy said:
I just have a lot of respect for the HOF. I dont think every really good player should get in. HOF should be for the very best players of their generation.

I absolutely 100% agree w/ you on that!!!!!!!!!!!!

I simply disagreed w/ using TD's scored as the criteria. Irvin had a low number of TD's also. Type of O and type of WR play a huge part in how many TD's get scored, and it often has nothing to do w/ talent. Irvin was a chain moving WR. He'd play a monstrous part in moving the ball down the field, then Emmit would run it in. That doesn't make Irving less of a WR.

CowboyRoy · Mar 18, 2021

kskboys said:
I absolutely 100% agree w/ you on that!!!!!!!!!!!!

I simply disagreed w/ using TD's scored as the criteria. Irvin had a low number of TD's also. Type of O and type of WR play a huge part in how many TD's get scored, and it often has nothing to do w/ talent. Irvin was a chain moving WR. He'd play a monstrous part in moving the ball down the field, then Emmit would run it in. That doesn't make Irving less of a WR.

True but the reason Irvin didnt get a lot of TD's is because he lacked speed and would get caught from behind. How many times did we see him go down at the 1 or 2 yard line. Its also why Emmitt got so many TD's.

Irvin also got more than 2 or 3 TD's most years. He was usually 6-8.

If Irvin had played for a bad team, he may not have gotten in. These guys that play for great teams and make deep playoff runs and make SB's always have an advantage in the voting.

RonnieT24 · Mar 18, 2021

kskboys said:
I absolutely 100% agree w/ you on that!!!!!!!!!!!!

I simply disagreed w/ using TD's scored as the criteria. Irvin had a low number of TD's also. Type of O and type of WR play a huge part in how many TD's get scored, and it often has nothing to do w/ talent. Irvin was a chain moving WR. He'd play a monstrous part in moving the ball down the field, then Emmit would run it in. That doesn't make Irving less of a WR.

Yes the Hall of Fame should never be confused with the "Hall of Numbers." If it were Paul Hornung wouldn't be in.. Nor would Joe Namath.. Namath threw more INTs than TDs in 11 of his 13 seasons.. and led the NFL in INTS 4 times. "But he was a winner.. " er.. no.. he had a career record of 62-63-4. Namath got in essentially on the strength of two magical season.. his 4007 yards and 26 TDs in '67 and then of course leading the Jets to the Super Bowl win in '68. He pretty much stunk up the joint the rest of his career. But again, it's the Hall of FAME.. and no one brought more FAME to football back then than Namath. Drew Pearson was in on some of the best teams of all time and was on the receiving end of some of the most iconic passes of all time. He is the epitome of a Hall of Famer.. He should have been in a long time ago.

RonnieT24 · Mar 18, 2021

CowboyRoy said:
True but the reason Irvin didnt get a lot of TD's is because he lacked speed and would get caught from behind. How many times did we see him go down at the 1 or 2 yard line. Its also why Emmitt got so many TD's.

Irvin also got more than 2 or 3 TD's most years. He was usually 6-8.

If Irvin had played for a bad team, he may not have gotten in. These guys that play for great teams and make deep playoff runs and make SB's always have an advantage in the voting.

No offense but this has always been a specious at best argument to me. Guys that play for great teams and make deep playoff runs are usually part of WHY those teams are great and make deep playoff runs. Some guys know how to play winning football.. and they understand that winning football isn't always about numbers. It absolutely IS sometimes.. but not always.. Sometimes guys sacrifice their numbers for the good of the team and true football aficionados see and appreciate them for it. Irvin and Aikman could probably have both led the NFL in their respective numbers in a different system.. but both took a bit of a haircut numbers-wise so the team could play a proven winning style of football. In that time not a lot of "throw it all the time" teams had won it all.

CowboyRoy · Mar 18, 2021

RonnieT24 said:
No offense but this has always been a specious at best argument to me. Guys that play for great teams and make deep playoff runs are usually part of WHY those teams are great and make deep playoff runs. Some guys know how to play winning football.. and they understand that winning football isn't always about numbers. It absolutely IS sometimes.. but not always.. Sometimes guys sacrifice their numbers for the good of the team and true football aficionados see and appreciate them for it. Irvin and Aikman could probably have both led the NFL in their respective numbers in a different system.. but both took a bit of a haircut numbers-wise so the team could play a proven winning style of football. In that time not a lot of "throw it all the time" teams had won it all.

Aikman without even Emmitt couldnt win a game. Aikman without his vaunted Oline could barely survive.

Look at a guy like Alvin Harper? Playing for these great teams makes a huge difference. If your going to argue it doesnt, dont bother responding.

blueblood70 · Mar 18, 2021

no but a longshot that way down the road he could be considered..

blueblood70 · Mar 18, 2021

RonnieT24 said:
No offense but this has always been a specious at best argument to me. Guys that play for great teams and make deep playoff runs are usually part of WHY those teams are great and make deep playoff runs. Some guys know how to play winning football.. and they understand that winning football isn't always about numbers. It absolutely IS sometimes.. but not always.. Sometimes guys sacrifice their numbers for the good of the team and true football aficionados see and appreciate them for it. Irvin and Aikman could probably have both led the NFL in their respective numbers in a different system.. but both took a bit of a haircut numbers-wise so the team could play a proven winning style of football. In that time not a lot of "throw it all the time" teams had won it all.

he caught the BALL! lol spectacular late game catch the refs blew the call..who knows we win the game go to the NFCCG it changes a lot of narratives..but yes not enough big wins for him or Romo both great players but not HOF careers, close but no cigar..

RonnieT24 · Mar 18, 2021

CowboyRoy said:
Aikman without even Emmitt couldnt win a game. Aikman without his vaunted Oline could barely survive.

Look at a guy like Alvin Harper? Playing for these great teams makes a huge difference. If your going to argue it doesnt, dont bother responding.

I would never make any such argument. I KNOW being on good teams helps guys' expand their legend. My point is that it also probably costs them in terms of numbers for the most part. Alvin Harper never put up the kind of numbers he put up in Dallas at any other stop.. however the Cowboys struggled to replace his 821 yards and 8 TDs at the #2 receiver position in 1994. Deion, Williams, Fleming and Bjornson combined for less than 800 yards and only 2 TDs in 1995. As with most things in the game of football.. it's a team deal.. They needed each other.. Irvin's numbers went up after Harper left.. but every other receiver went down..

jusdre · Mar 18, 2021

dckid · Mar 18, 2021

5Stars said:
I just read an article where Dez was saying that he is sure that he is a lock for the HOF because of all the TD's he has caught during his career.

"Nobody put up TD's the way I put up."

His numbers -- 7,506 career receiving yards and 77 total touchdowns -- aren't historically enough to lock him in ... but he is one of the freakiest players to ever play.

Dez tells us what he did in such a short time should be enough to get him in ... but he did admit he's probably not a first-ballot kind of guy at this point.

What you citizens think?

Lol.
Like many have said.. this is a good laugh.
He is not HOF on any metric. Performance, longevity, league's best for a certain time frame.
Good player of course but hard NO.

ABQCOWBOY · Mar 18, 2021

69c89a7e9bae6bdfa31a0e38f13cb63d--sanford-and-son-lol-funny.jpg

Is Dez Bryant a lock for the HOF?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Joe....