Pearson vs. Swann vs. Carmichael: Objective look

[Keithfansince5]

The HoF voters have not only done an injustice to Drew Pearson, but their leaving Cliff Branch out of Canton is just as wrong. During a 15-year stretch (early 60s - mid 70s), Branch was one of the four most accomplished and feared deep threats in the game (Lance Alworth, Bob Hayes, Paul Warfield) and of the other three, only Hayes was faster.

As others have said, Pearson is hurt by the fact Pittsburgh beat Dallas in two SBs. And in those two wins, Swann was stellar.

Although L.C. Greenwood had a monster game in SB X (four sacks) and Jack Lambert played like a wild man in the 2nd half (Cliff Harris set him off like a Roman candle by patting Roy Gerela on the head after a missed FG late in the 2nd quarter), it was Swann who shone most in Miami that day.

And, it was Harris who tried to intimidate Swann in the media before the game, after Swann was concussed in the AFCCG vs the Raiders. All Swann did was make one spectacular catch after another, setting a then SB record for receiving yards.

I love Drew Pearson, but the truth is undeniable: had Dallas and Pittsburgh traded their #88's before kick-off, the Cowboys would have won SB X. Swann's acrobatic catches were responsible for 14 Pittsburgh points in a four-point win. Drew, great as he was, could not have soared high to make those two amazing catches vs Mark Washington, who actually had very good coverage.

In SB XIII, the most spectacular play was Swann soaring over Harris in the back of the end zone to catch the clinching TD. Had it been Pearson, that would have been an incomplete pass out of the back of the end zone. And Swann capped off his SB career with a deep TD vs Rod Perry of the Rams the following year. I can't stand the Steelers, but in their last three SBs, Swann was their best offensive threat.

With championships comes national media recognition, and one more SB win would have been large enough to overcome the anti-Dallas bias in the HoF voting. If the Cowboys had won either SB X or XIII, guys like Drew and Harvey Martin would be in Canton already.

Obviously, the voters remember what Swann did in the SB. Pearson's career stats/accomplishments were at least the equal of Swann's, and actually, even better. But on the biggest stage, Swann shone brighter, and being on a four-time champion, he became a lock for Canton.

Unless Drew gets in next year, I think it's unlikely he will get in. Sadly, the window appears to be closing shut on Harvey Martin and the Cowboys' most deserving player not yet in, Chuck Howley.

First Pearson wouldn't have had to make acrobatic catches like Swann did because Staubach was better than Bradshaw and would have made better passes. Even as it is, Pearson played in 3 SB's and won 1. All of my life I heard that as long as you win 1 SB you have a shot at the HOF as long as you were considered good. Pearson was considered GREAT not good. He has 1 ring and should have had another. Dallas should have won the second game against the Steelers if not for Jackie Smith. Who names their son Jackie anyway? I am not a fan of him at all. Easiest pass to catch of all time and he dropped it. I bet if 100 fans were randomly selected out of the stands that day to recreate that exact play all 100 of them make that catch.

I can't imagine the HOF voters looking at how players of the same position matched up head to head from players on other teams is how they decide who goes in or ot. Now, if Drew Pearson was a CB and was beaten badly by Swann in those 2 games, then that might make sense. WR's can only rack up stats when their QB throws them the ball. Swann was a good player, but give me "Mr. Clutch" any day.

 

[Keithfansince5]

The Super Bowl losses to the Steelers definitely hurt the chances of Drew Pearson and several other players of getting in the Hall of Fame.

Yet somehow the SB win against the Broncos had ZERO impact for Drew????

 

[OmerV]

Yet somehow the SB win against the Broncos had ZERO impact for Drew????

It didn't help that Drew only had 13 yards in that game

 

[Keithfansince5]

It didn't help that Drew only had 13 yards in that game

Still a ring none the less.

 

[OmerV]

Still a ring none the less.

I agree, and obviously he was a big part of the team getting to the Super Bowl, but big games in the Super Bowl can help cement players in the minds of HOF voters. Swann had those big games, and unfortunately Drew did not. That's not to say Swann was better, just that he was able to catch the eyes of the public on the big stage, and that helped with how he was perceived.

 

[KJJ]

Yet somehow the SB win against the Broncos had ZERO impact for Drew????

Butch Johnson made the catch of the game. Pearson only had one catch for 13 yards in that Super Bowl.

 

[OmerV]

Butch Johnson made the catch of the game. Pearson only had one catch for 13 yards in that Super Bowl.

yep, and it wouldn't be a catch today. Honestly, even at the time my first reaction was that it wasn't a catch.

 

[KJJ]

yep, and it wouldn't be a catch today. Honestly, even at the time my first reaction was that it wasn't a catch.

Under the new catch rule it would be a catch today. He held the ball just long enough to complete the catch. Under the new rule you don’t have to hold the ball all the way to the ground.

 

[OmerV]

Under the new catch rule it would be a catch today. He held the ball long enough to complete the catch.

No it wouldn't because the receiver still has to establish possession before losing the ball, and there were no steps or "football move" or even getting 2 feet down.

 

[eromeopolk]

I have no reason to rethink my opinion. Carmichael was stuck on a garbage Eagles team with little talent, being the focus of the defense because for most years everyone else on the team sucked. He has trash at QB and for coaches most of the time. Put Carmichael on the Cowboys in his early and prime years and people would think he's a god. He's not first team because he doesn't have the rings. If Pearson didn't have the rings this wouldn't even be a discussion.

You are allowed to be wrong. It's okay. I don't argue either.

And Lynn Swann is overrated Steeler trash.

What Jersey number you want as a WR? 17 or 88? I rest my case.

Terry Glenn chose 88 (Patriots), and Randy Moss chose 88 (Marshall) because of Drew Pearson. Also, Michael Irvin (Cowboys fan growing up), Mike Sherrad, and Dez Bryant (Cowboys fan growing up) wanted no. 88. Why because the no. was famous. Why? Because Drew Pearson made the no. 88 famous.

The Hall of Fame is for the FAMOUS.

 

[KJJ]

No it wouldn't because the receiver still has to establish possession before losing the ball, and there were no steps or "football move" or even getting 2 feet down.

He did establish possession before losing the ball. It would be a catch today because he brought the ball into his body and possessed it just long enough to complete a catch. One of the steps to completing a catch is bringing the ball into the body. Not going argue it any further.

 

[OmerV]

He did establish possession before losing the ball. It would be a catch today because he brought the ball into his body and possessed it just long enough to complete a catch. One of the steps to completing a catch is bringing the ball into the body. Not going argue it any further.

I don't think the new rule eliminated the elements of a catch, such as taking steps or getting both feet down, or making a football move. I think the new rule just allows things like Dez's steps and reach to be ruled as the requisite elements of a catch. But Butch didn't do those things. I believe a diving player still has to maintain control all the way through the play.

 

[KJJ]

I don't think the new rule eliminated the elements of a catch, such as taking steps or getting both feet down, or making a football move. I think the new rule just allows things like Dez's steps and reach to be ruled as the requisite elements of a catch. But Butch didn't do those things. I believe a diving player still has to maintain control all the way through the play.

The new rule eliminates having to hold the ball all the way through the contact of the ground. Diving for the ball and bringing it into the body is a football move. The only question on that play is did he have the ball long enough to establish possession. I believe he did but it’s close.

 

[MichaelValentino]

First Pearson wouldn't have had to make acrobatic catches like Swann did because Staubach was better than Bradshaw and would have made better passes. Even as it is, Pearson played in 3 SB's and won 1. All of my life I heard that as long as you win 1 SB you have a shot at the HOF as long as you were considered good. Pearson was considered GREAT not good. He has 1 ring and should have had another. Dallas should have won the second game against the Steelers if not for Jackie Smith. Who names their son Jackie anyway? I am not a fan of him at all. Easiest pass to catch of all time and he dropped it. I bet if 100 fans were randomly selected out of the stands that day to recreate that exact play all 100 of them make that catch.

I can't imagine the HOF voters looking at how players of the same position matched up head to head from players on other teams is how they decide who goes in or ot. Now, if Drew Pearson was a CB and was beaten badly by Swann in those 2 games, then that might make sense. WR's can only rack up stats when their QB throws them the ball. Swann was a good player, but give me "Mr. Clutch" any day.

Keith,

I think you missed my point based on the bold ^.

Swann is in the HoF largely on the basis of his spectacular play in three of the Steelers' four SB wins. His catches in SB X and XIII vs. Dallas are iconic. And beating a team that was unquestionably the best team of the NFC in the 70s helped to cement Pittsburgh's status as one of the greatest dynasties in NFL history.

Great players beget championships, and championships beget national notoriety and acclaim.

The Montreal Canadiens have 24 Stanley Cups and 44 members in the NHL Hall of Fame. The Yankees have 27 World Series titles and more players in Cooperstown than any team. The 60s Packers and 70s Steelers have their own wings in Canton. Titles and enshrinements go hand in glove.

I believe Drew should be in. But my point about SB X is, I believe, valid.

Great as Drew was, if he was on the Steelers that day, he does not come down with that amazing leaping catch up the right sideline in the 1st quarter with the Cowboys up 7-0 that led to a Pittsburgh TD. And he doesn't make that leaping catch in the middle of the field in the 3rd quarter that, IIRC, also led to Steelers' points. Maybe Drew catches that deep bomb when D.D. Lewis knocked Bradshaw out of the game. Neither Drew nor Swann ran a 4.4 but both of them beat a lot of guys deep even though from the eyeball test, Swann looked faster to me. Swann made plays in the SB that no other receiver of that era could have made because he had a vertical leap that looked like Michael Jordan. Maybe it was, as you suggest, because Bradshaw didn't make good enough passes, I don't know. Roger was the greatest QB of his era, but Bradshaw could make throws Roger could not because of superior arm strength.

Without Swann, Dallas wins SB X and no. 79 and no. 88 are in Canton by now because Dallas, not Pittsburgh, would have been crowned team of the 70s (Dallas had more regular season wins and more playoff appearances than Pittsburgh in the 70s, and with three SB wins apiece, Dallas would have been THE dynasty).

I do agree with you, had Smith made that catch in SB XIII, the Cowboys would have won. Until the PI call on Benny Barnes and the subsequent 22-yd TD run by Franco Harris, the Steelers didn't have a single first down in the 2nd half. With Stallworth out of the game (leg cramps, I think), Pittsburgh could not move the ball. Smith's drop was huge. I wish Jay Saldi was healthy for that game.

 

[Keithfansince5]

I still hold the Cowboys as the team of the 70's because they amassed more wins, & appeared in more SB's than the Steelers. The Steelers were better in SB's that is for sure. Just not the rest of the decade. And I do not believe Bradshaw had a stronger arm that Staubach. Neither were considered cannon arms but neither were Montana weak either. Only the Patriots can boast going to 5 Superbowls in a decade besides Dallas.

 

[mrmojo]

Go to You Tube and watch the last 5 minutes of the 1980 Atlanta Dallas playoff game withe Vin Scully and George Allen announcing. Allen is gushing over Pearson calling him among the greatest clutch receivers of all time, if not the best and Scully mentions he just got elected to the all-dacade team. But the greatness of Drew was highlighted in that game. Its only one game but he had several like that, that i do recall.

 

[Cowboysheelsreds053]

Harris wasn't eligible until Donnie Shell got in.

I think they are waiting for Louis Lipps to get in before seriously considering Pearson.

LLLOOOLLL, CPAN strikes again.

 

[OmerV]

The new rule eliminates having to hold the ball all the way through the contact of the ground. Diving for the ball and bringing it into the body is a football move. The only question on that play is did he have the ball long enough to establish possession. I believe he did but it’s close.

I found the summary of the changes in this link. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...ams-unanimously-approve-simplified-catch-rule

It looks like the going to the ground element is gone, but that there are still 3 elements of a catch as shown below. I think the 1st element is very close like you said - did he have it long enough to establish control? I see why you believe he did, but I could see where officials might be unsure. The 2nd element I think he fulfilled because even though he didn't get 2 feet down, the elbow and shoulder would qualify as "another body part". The 3rd element I think is the biggest problem. I don't think he either made the required "football move", or had the ability to do so. I don't think merely pulling the ball in as any receiver would qualifies as that.


The new rules defining a catch include:

1. Control of the ball.
2. Two feet down or another body part.
3. A football move such as:
» A third step;
» Reaching/extending for the line-to-gain;
» Or the ability to perform such an act.

The key change to the rule eliminated the "going-to-the-ground" element of the previous rule.

 

[KJJ]

I found the summary of the changes in this link. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...ams-unanimously-approve-simplified-catch-rule

It looks like the going to the ground element is gone, but that there are still 3 elements of a catch as shown below. I think the 1st element is very close like you said - did he have it long enough to establish control? I see why you believe he did, but I could see where officials might be unsure. The 2nd element I think he fulfilled because even though he didn't get 2 feet down, the elbow and shoulder would qualify as "another body part". The 3rd element I think is the biggest problem. I don't think he either made the required "football move", or had the ability to do so. I don't think merely pulling the ball in as any receiver would qualifies as that.


The new rules defining a catch include:

1. Control of the ball.
2. Two feet down or another body part.
3. A football move such as:
» A third step;
» Reaching/extending for the line-to-gain;
» Or the ability to perform such an act.

The key change to the rule eliminated the "going-to-the-ground" element of the previous rule.

He had control of the ball which allowed him to bring the ball into his body. The head of officiating who explained the new rule said bringing the ball into the body is considered a football move. Johnson had a body part down and the only question is whether he had the ball long enough. It’s debatable but I think he did.

 

[KJJ]

I found the summary of the changes in this link. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...ams-unanimously-approve-simplified-catch-rule

It looks like the going to the ground element is gone, but that there are still 3 elements of a catch as shown below. I think the 1st element is very close like you said - did he have it long enough to establish control? I see why you believe he did, but I could see where officials might be unsure. The 2nd element I think he fulfilled because even though he didn't get 2 feet down, the elbow and shoulder would qualify as "another body part". The 3rd element I think is the biggest problem. I don't think he either made the required "football move", or had the ability to do so. I don't think merely pulling the ball in as any receiver would qualifies as that.


The new rules defining a catch include:

1. Control of the ball.
2. Two feet down or another body part.
3. A football move such as:
» A third step;
» Reaching/extending for the line-to-gain;
» Or the ability to perform such an act.

The key change to the rule eliminated the "going-to-the-ground" element of the previous rule.

In this video he explains that bringing the ball in is considered a football move.