HOF - Cliff Harris in; Drew Pearson not

cowboysfan99

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
1,751
I agree completely, but you have to understand the context of my comments, which were only made as a response to the notion that Pearson is getting screwed because Warfield and Carmichael are in the HOF even though they weren't on the 1970's all decade team and Pearson was. I was simply pointing out that he was omitting the fact that Warfield and Carmichael built their careers on more than just the 1970's.

Warfield was more deserving than Pearson. I'm not even going to question that. He was an all time great WR. But I don't think Carmichael should have gotten in before Pearson if you check those stats posted by percyhoward. Their season averages were pretty much the same minus Carmichael had more TDs.
 

G2

Taco Engineer
Messages
24,426
Reaction score
26,192
I agree completely, but you have to understand the context of my comments, which were only made as a response to the notion that Pearson is getting screwed because Warfield and Carmichael are in the HOF even though they weren't on the 1970's all decade team and Pearson was. I was simply pointing out that he was omitting the fact that Warfield and Carmichael built their careers on more than just the 1970's.
I think it's a bigger point that he's the ONLY one on that 70's team that is not in the HOF.
 

OmerV

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,864
Reaction score
22,388
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Warfield was more deserving than Pearson. I'm not even going to question that. He was an all time great WR. But I don't think Carmichael should have gotten in before Pearson if you check those stats posted by percyhoward. Their season averages were pretty much the same minus Carmichael had more TDs.

Clearly you are right about Warfield. Not even a question. As for Carmichael, I don't disagree with you. My point wasn't to say Carmichael was more deserving, but just to say that he had a career where it isn't unreasonable if some people believe he is. Some take it as a travesty that Carmichael got in over Pearson, and I view it more as a difference of opinion on players that are both deserving. It's probably a fair bet that Eagles fans feel Carmichael has been screwed all these years in the same way Cowboy fans feel Pearson has been screwed.

The one thing that surprises me didn't tip the scales a little toward Drew is the high profile "Hail Mary" and the clutch plays in the playoffs. But, I guess being 6'8" always made Carmichael noticeable for viewers and eventual voters too.
 

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
55,143
Reaction score
36,328
I would agree that is a strong point. That has nothing to do with Carmichael and Warfield
Who were 2nd teamers on the 70’s decade team.

Warfield career which also included the 60’s I’d describe as a greater talent than Drew. And Carmichael who’s career spun into the 80’s was in some ways a bigger threat maybe even a more dominating figure on a lesser team that era.

It’s close but now that Drew is only one from that 1st team All Decade it does appear he will most likely get in now. Unfortunately it still comes down to getting in by these sports writers and if I had to choose between Cliff and Drew , I would have gone with Cliff. It doesn’t mean I wouldn’t lobby for Drew next time which as only starter and now receiver from that squad I think will be a much easier sell.
 

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
55,143
Reaction score
36,328
Clearly you are right about Warfield. Not even a question. As for Carmichael, I don't disagree with you. My point wasn't to say Carmichael was more deserving, but just to say that he had a career where it isn't unreasonable if some people believe he is. Some take it as a travesty that Carmichael got in over Pearson, and I view it more as a difference of opinion on players that are both deserving. It's probably a fair bet that Eagles fans feel Carmichael has been screwed all these years in the same way Cowboy fans feel Pearson has been screwed.

The one thing that surprises me didn't tip the scales a little toward Drew is the high profile "Hail Mary" and the clutch plays in the playoffs. But, I guess being 6'8" always made Carmichael noticeable for viewers and eventual voters too.
Well said!
 

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
55,143
Reaction score
36,328
The fact Carmichael and Warfield were 2nd teamers on that 70’s decade team didn’t mean Swann and Pearson were greater receivers. Just that they were in that decade not necessarily their entire career.
 

Avery

The Dog that Saved Charleston
Messages
19,465
Reaction score
20,518
Senior committee needs to get their act together and support him as priority one.
 

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
55,143
Reaction score
36,328
Unfortunately with the HOF unless you’re great enough to get in on 1st Ballot then you’ll be left up to the scrutiny of sports writers.

Many of these Old Timers who are often named posthumously were left out a lifetime.

And why it’s never too late to get in. I think that’s what makes it such a prestigious fraternity that not everyone gets in.

Here we are 100 years and only a little over 300 in.
 

OmerV

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,864
Reaction score
22,388
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Who were 2nd teamers on the 70’s decade team.

Warfield career which also included the 60’s I’d describe as a greater talent than Drew. And Carmichael who’s career spun into the 80’s was in some ways a bigger threat maybe even a more dominating figure on a lesser team that era.

It’s close but now that Drew is only one from that 1st team All Decade it does appear he will most likely get in now. Unfortunately it still comes down to getting in by these sports writers and if I had to choose between Cliff and Drew , I would have gone with Cliff. It doesn’t mean I wouldn’t lobby for Drew next time which as only starter and now receiver from that squad I think will be a much easier sell.
Agreed
 

IndianaCowboys1994

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,082
Reaction score
1,044
It was so very important than Drew got in HOF now, ..and the more time passes by, the more players from that era tend to be forgotten and flat left in the dust.
and we never know if a newer selected group of HOF voters will be that much more prone to forgetting and neglecting the past era of players.

I would have thought not only Pearson being a part of All-pro and All-Decade honors would draw considerable attention but also being well connected with still the
most popular sports team of all time, would have definitely help bring even more spotlight attention to his chances of getting it. ...but alas NOPE !

BTW, NFL draft time will always be prompted by both Drew Pearson's cheering Cowboys rant vs boo-hissing Philly fans (every team hosting NFL draft will always try to top that.!!)
..and the " Who's the hell is this Mel Kiper? " moment. LOL :lmao2:
There are a few things that should get a man in the Hall of Fame at one point. Being on the All-Decade team is one of those. Not saying they all are first ballot HOF's. But yes, as time passes we forget. Football is a really tough sport to compare players. Football is different now than it was in the 1970s. I'm sure Drew Pearson could but up the numbers that guys like Julio Jones have put up.
 

OldJarhead

Well-Known Member
Messages
661
Reaction score
489
Cliff just named to the Hall of Fame.

Drew Pearson not named.

Criminal.

Because he doesn't work for the NFL Network or Fox, NBC or CBS. As soon as NFL Network does a "Football Life" Episode on him he'll get in.
 

Captain-Crash

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,052
Reaction score
32,983
Cool moment for Captain Crash. Appreciates the hell out of Gil Brandt and Coach Landry, the people that truly made this franchise what it is.


not just a great player, but a super good guy! nothing but respect for the man!.
 

OmerV

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,864
Reaction score
22,388
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Agree How is Drew not in..yet Lynn Swann got in like 20 years ago lol
Perception, and really built on the 2 Super Bowl wins against the Cowboys. Swann had big games in those wins, and had some circus catches that are still commonly shown on highlight reels to this day. I think that colored the voter's viewpoints. Add in the 4 Super Bowl wins, and there you have it. Pearson was really the better receiver overall in my eyes, but 2 very public games with highlight clips everyone has seen have swayed voters.
 

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,841
Reaction score
16,029
Carmichael
All-Decade 70s (2nd team)
0 AP 1st team All Pro
4 Pro Bowls
12 Top 10 Seasons
0 rings

Pearson
All-Decade 70s (1st team)
3 AP 1st team All Pro
3 Pro Bowls
10 Top 10 Seasons
1 ring

Top 10 Seasons = receptions, yards, or TD

That's great but no one here is comparing their actual career numbers. If things came down to these two, who would any of you pick? I'll throw in Cliff Branch too.

Carmichael
182 Games
590 Receptions
8,985 Yards
15.2 ypc
79 TDs

Pearson
156 Games
489 Receptions
7,822 Yards
16.0 ypc
48 TDs
-----------------------
Branch
183 Games
501 Receptions
8,685 Yards
17.3 ypc
67 TDs
 

MarcusRock

Well-Known Member
Messages
13,841
Reaction score
16,029
Warfield was more deserving than Pearson. I'm not even going to question that. He was an all time great WR. But I don't think Carmichael should have gotten in before Pearson if you check those stats posted by percyhoward. Their season averages were pretty much the same minus Carmichael had more TDs.

The TD gap is a big one. Plus, their season averages might be pretty much the same because Carmichael had a longer career. See the raw numbers above.
 
Top