The30YardSlant;4039776 said:
The fact that Drew Pearson is not in the HOF or ROH yet is baffling. Compare his stats to those of Lynn Swann, who IS in the HOF...
Swann had 336 catches, 5,462 yards receiving and 51 TDs in his career. Pearson had 489 catches, 7,822 yards receiving and 48 TDs. Pearson averaged more catches and yards per game in his career than Swann. Had he played the same number of years as Art Monk (another HOF receiver) their numbers would have been almost identical, with Pearson having more TDs. The same goes for Charlie Joiner, except Pearson averaged moe TDs, yards AND catches per game than him. He had more catches and yards than Bob Hayes (yet another Hall of Famer) in the same number of years.
Swann can't be the key comparison because frankly he didn't have the numbers to get into the HOF. He got in for 2 reasons - he made acrobatic, highlight reel catches in Super Bowls, and he was on the Super Bowl winning team 4 times. I have serious doubts that he belongs, but coming up big in big games always gets attention.
Pearson was also good at cominig up big in big games, but not as much in the ultimate big game (maybe just not as much opportunity). I'm not saying it's right that he was shortchanged in comparison to Swann, because I don't think it is, but voters get locked into certain things and it sometimes can be a flaw in the system.
As for what Pearson's numbers would have been had he played as long as Monk and Joiner, that really can't be treated as an argument in favor of Pearson. You can't vote for a guy based on what he might have done, if he had played longer - the fact is that Monk and Joiner did play longer, and therefore the "might" and "if" is taken out of the equation with them.
As for Hayes, his HOF inclusion wasn't merely based on numbers - and in fact he was not as good an overall receive as Pearson. But his sheer speed was a new element that the NFL wasn't ready for and actually facilitated the creation of the zone defense.
Doomsday101;4039805 said:
If we go by the stats then shouldn't Tony Hill be in as well?
Exactly. Pearson is the man over Hill not by numbers, but by the big plays and the absolute trust Roger had in him. He was Staubach's go to guy every bit as much as Irvin was Aikman's go to guy. Hill was soft going over the middle - Pearson would sacrifice himself for the catch. That's stuff that can't be understood just from the numbers.