Why Did PFHOF's SC Push Hard For Stallworth But Not At All For Pearson?

[DallasEast]

With the naming of the 2010s NFL All-Decade Team pending (which will create another excuse to not select Drew Pearson), I decided to look at the All-Decade Team/Hall of Fame argument again. The PFHOF Selection Committee has the 'honor' (lol) of picking outstanding players for both the all-decade teams and the Hall.

Typically, non-special teamers picked for the all-decade teams are later inducted into the Hall. Sticking with wide receivers only, here are the wide receivers enshrined by Selection Committee since 1988--the first year of Pearson's eligibility for the Hall:

Year/WR
1988 Fred Biletnikoff
1995 Steve Largent
1996 Charlie Joiner
1998 Tommy McDonald
2001 Lynn Swann
2002 John Stallworth
2003 James Lofton
2007 Michael Irvin
2008 Art Monk
2009 Bob Hayes
2010 Jerry Rice
2013 Cris Carter
2014 Andre Reed
2015 Tim Brown
2016 Marvin Harrison
2018 Randy Moss
2018 Terrell Owens

Personally, I may disagree with certain committee picks (cough LYNN SWANN cough) but my argument has always been that all-decade members should be automatic Hall of Famers since both are evaluated by the same judging body. So I will scratch the all-decaders, which leaves receivers who were not selected to neither the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s nor 2000s all-decade teams:

Year/WR
1988 Fred Biletnikoff
1996 Charlie Joiner
1998 Tommy McDonald
2002 John Stallworth
2009 Bob Hayes
2014 Andre Reed

In my opinion, there were no-brainers galore selecting Fred Biletnikoff, Charlie Joiner and Andre Reed--although the committee took their sweet time getting those gentlemen enshrined. Biletnikoff and Joiner went five consecutive years as finalists, while Reed went eight consecutive years.

Even so, those three guys waited a maximum of five (Biletnikoff and Joiner) and nine (Reed) years before having their busts revealed in Canton. Tommy McDonald and Bob Hayes endured far worst. Between 1958 and 1962 (read that again and think of the era), McDonald scored 56 touchdowns in 63 games. Hayes, literally, changed how defenses played him. McDonald and Hayes waited 25 and 29 years, respectively, AFTER the mandatory five-year retirement period before getting inducted.

Both men were finalists only twice during their wait, with McDonald enduring an 11-year stretch between yearly finalist finishes beflre standing on the Canton stage. At least McDonald had his moment of glory. Roger Staubach spoke on behalf of Hayes, in front of Hayes' family, while Hayes' son stepped on stage to stand by his father's bust seven years after Hayes' death.

Disgraceful.

Whose left? Who was not one of eight possible picks of the 1970s AND 1980s NFL All-Decade Teams?

Oh yeah. John Stallworth. Just for <expletive> and giggles, let's take career bulletpoints from Stallworth's actual Hall of Fame short bio against one I drew up for Pearson:

Note: Stallworth played 14 seasons to Pearson's 11 seasons.

Is there a significant margin existing between these two men? My opinion is no.

Stallworth retired in 1987, four years after Pearson. Stallworth was named a finalist for the first name in 1994, which was Pearson's sixth year of Hall eligibility. In the span between 1994 and 2002, Stallworth was named a finalist eight of the nine years within the 10 years he was eligible after retirement. How many times was Pearson a finalist during that same timeframe?

Answer: Zero.

Why was there such a big push to get Stallworth into the Hall? Why did Stallworth garner so much support from the selection committee on a nearly annual basis while Pearson got zip? Stallworth played significant years in both the 1970s and 1980s but the selection committee did not 'honor' him by naming him in two separate all-decade teams.

My opinion? I believe Stallworth deserves being in the Hall. However, I also believe the selection committee focused practically all effort into getting Stallworth to the extent that there was practically nothing left over to support Pearson's entry during his prime opportune years.

Conspiracy? Bias? Perhaps not but something stinks to high heaven.

/rant

PS In addition to the the selection committee naming the upcoming 2010s All-Decade Team, anyone interested in Pearson's chances should consider Torry Holt remains unpick by the selection committee. He and Pearson are the only current wide receivers on any all-decade team since the 1970s group not in the Hall...

 

[Super_Kazuya]

It’s a good question... unfortunately, and I don’t like it, but the answer probably comes down to four rings to one when it came to prioritizing. You can’t like it for say Aikman and Haley and then not like it for Stallworth. Well, you can... but we know how that goes.

 

[MarcusRock]

It’s a good question... unfortunately, and I don’t like it, but the answer probably comes down to four rings to one when it came to prioritizing. You can’t like it for say Aikman and Haley and then not like it for Stallworth. Well, you can... but we know how that goes.

Yeah but Stallworth's numbers are superior too if you strip away all the rest of it.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

Could be, I don’t know, the four Super Bowl rings that tipped the scale?

 

[Cowboysheelsreds053]

Well how come John Taylor is not in the HOF opposite of J. Rice? He has some rings.

 

[DallasEast]

What Happens After Someone is Nominated as a Modern-Era Nominee?

A nomination is NOT a vote for election. The Hall of Fame’s selection process includes multiple steps in which the nominees are scrutinized. The Hall facilitates the procedure of three successive reviews of increasing scrutiny with its 48 selectors. The first is a vote to reduce the long list of Modern-Era nominees (typically around 100) to 25 semifinalists, followed by a later vote to reduce to 15 finalists. At the annual “Selection Saturday" Meeting, the finalists are scrutinized even further by the Selectors, who after a thorough discussion of each nominee reduce the list from 15 to 10 and then 10 to 5. At that point, the five remaining nominees are voted on for membership on a yes or no basis. A minimum positive vote of 80 percent is necessary for election.

https://www.profootballhof.com/heroes-of-the-game/selection-process-faq/

***********

The above describes the selection committee's process from nomination to finalist to election.

There are a significant number of players who have been named finalist after their mandatory retirement--with a good number notably soon after their retirement. Curious? Click here and review the complete yearly finalists' list.

Obviously, the selection committee has its reasons for not inducting Pearson. It is likely similar determinations are share by others, even those who are fans of this franchise. Those determinations include 'rings', 'numbers' etc.

Pearson has a ring. Stallworth has three more than him. A 4:1 ratio in rings is not a particularly strong counterpoint in my opinion.

Pearson's overall career was three years shorter than Stallworth. Regardless, both men's numbers are more similar than dissimilar.

The selection committee has made it crystal clear it has not made an effort to induct Pearson. That said, the thread title questions their effort. Again, there have been far many finalists than players enshrined. The yearly finalist lists illustrate the effort made by the selection committee to recognize worthy players--even when most are not voted into the Hall.

This thread questions why the selection committee's efforts, involving two similar players, are disproportionate between the two men. Summary:

• Stallworth. Retired 1988. HOF finalist 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 & 2002.
• Pearson. Retired 1983. HOF finalist 2020 (In an expanded centennial field no less)

 

[big dog cowboy]

Why Did PFHOF's SC Push Hard For Stallworth But Not At All For Pearson?

Anti-Cowboy bias?

 

[DallasEast]

Anti-Cowboy bias?

Could be but the selection committee sometimes draws hard lines for certain players regardless of team affiliation. If I were to say 'bias' myself, it would probably be that the selection committee holds some sort of bias against Pearson specifically.

At one point league history, the committee agrees Pearson one of the four best receivers in a decade. In fact, the committee cited Pearson as one of the top two of that lofty group of four receivers.

Decades past and the same committee never argued strongly enough to make Pearson a finalist. Forget voting him into the Hall. Simply thought he was not worthy as a finalist. The committee finally makes Pearson a finalist nearly forty years later, with the help of a one-time special blue-ribbon panel of judges working side-by-side with them.

One guy gets eight finalist recognitions in his first nine years of Hall eligibility. The other guy? One finalist recognition after waiting nearly forty years.

Does. Not. Pass. The. Smell. Test.

 

[eromeopolk]

With the naming of the 2010s NFL All-Decade Team pending (which will create another excuse to not select Drew Pearson), I decided to look at the All-Decade Team/Hall of Fame argument again. The PFHOF Selection Committee has the 'honor' (lol) of picking outstanding players for both the all-decade teams and the Hall.

Typically, non-special teamers picked for the all-decade teams are later inducted into the Hall. Sticking with wide receivers only, here are the wide receivers enshrined by Selection Committee since 1988--the first year of Pearson's eligibility for the Hall:

Year/WR
1988 Fred Biletnikoff
1995 Steve Largent
1996 Charlie Joiner
1998 Tommy McDonald
2001 Lynn Swann
2002 John Stallworth
2003 James Lofton
2007 Michael Irvin
2008 Art Monk
2009 Bob Hayes
2010 Jerry Rice
2013 Cris Carter
2014 Andre Reed
2015 Tim Brown
2016 Marvin Harrison
2018 Randy Moss
2018 Terrell Owens

Personally, I may disagree with certain committee picks (cough LYNN SWANN cough) but my argument has always been that all-decade members should be automatic Hall of Famers since both are evaluated by the same judging body. So I will scratch the all-decaders, which leaves receivers who were not selected to neither the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s nor 2000s all-decade teams:

Year/WR
1988 Fred Biletnikoff
1996 Charlie Joiner
1998 Tommy McDonald
2002 John Stallworth
2009 Bob Hayes
2014 Andre Reed

In my opinion, there were no-brainers galore selecting Fred Biletnikoff, Charlie Joiner and Andre Reed--although the committee took their sweet time getting those gentlemen enshrined. Biletnikoff and Joiner went five consecutive years as finalists, while Reed went eight consecutive years.

Even so, those three guys waited a maximum of five (Biletnikoff and Joiner) and nine (Reed) years before having their busts revealed in Canton. Tommy McDonald and Bob Hayes endured far worst. Between 1958 and 1962 (read that again and think of the era), McDonald scored 56 touchdowns in 63 games. Hayes, literally, changed how defenses played him. McDonald and Hayes waited 25 and 29 years, respectively, AFTER the mandatory five-year retirement period before getting inducted.

Both men were finalists only twice during their wait, with McDonald enduring an 11-year stretch between yearly finalist finishes beflre standing on the Canton stage. At least McDonald had his moment of glory. Roger Staubach spoke on behalf of Hayes, in front of Hayes' family, while Hayes' son stepped on stage to stand by his father's bust seven years after Hayes' death.

Disgraceful.

Whose left? Who was not one of eight possible picks of the 1970s AND 1980s NFL All-Decade Teams?

Oh yeah. John Stallworth. Just for <expletive> and giggles, let's take career bulletpoints from Stallworth's actual Hall of Fame short bio against one I drew up for Pearson:

Note: Stallworth played 14 seasons to Pearson's 11 seasons.

Is there a significant margin existing between these two men? My opinion is no.

Stallworth retired in 1987, four years after Pearson. Stallworth was named a finalist for the first name in 1994, which was Pearson's sixth year of Hall eligibility. In the span between 1994 and 2002, Stallworth was named a finalist eight of the nine years within the 10 years he was eligible after retirement. How many times was Pearson a finalist during that same timeframe?

Answer: Zero.

Why was there such a big push to get Stallworth into the Hall? Why did Stallworth garner so much support from the selection committee on a nearly annual basis while Pearson got zip? Stallworth played significant years in both the 1970s and 1980s but the selection committee did not 'honor' him by naming him in two separate all-decade teams.

My opinion? I believe Stallworth deserves being in the Hall. However, I also believe the selection committee focused practically all effort into getting Stallworth to the extent that there was practically nothing left over to support Pearson's entry during his prime opportune years.

Conspiracy? Bias? Perhaps not but something stinks to high heaven.

/rant

PS In addition to the the selection committee naming the upcoming 2010s All-Decade Team, anyone interested in Pearson's chances should consider Torry Holt remains unpick by the selection committee. He and Pearson are the only current wide receivers on any all-decade team since the 1970s group not in the Hall...

The biggest thing that people forget about Drew Pearson's career was that is was cut short. He was involved in a tragic car crash that killed his youngest brother and Drew Pearson was advise to retire the same year due the medical and health conditions caused by the accident.

Micheal Irvin career was cut short so he could not go after the Rice records. Pearson career was cut short after the Cowboys were opening up the passing game that allowed Tony Hill to break his pass receiving marks. The Cowboys from 1973 to 1983 (Pearson's career) had finished in the top 10 of offense every year. You do that by running and passing the ball. So Pearson's effect on his team had much more impact that any WR of his era which is why he was an All Decade WR of the 70's.

There is just a bias against Cowboy players because of the fame they had as players on America's team. Drew Pearson was one of the most famous Dallas Cowboys of that era.

 

[DallasEast]

The biggest thing that people forget about Drew Pearson's career was that is was cut short. He was involved in a tragic car crash that killed his youngest brother and Drew Pearson was advise to retire the same year due the medical and health conditions caused by the accident.

Micheal Irvin career was cut short so he could not go after the Rice records. Pearson career was cut short after the Cowboys were opening up the passing game that allowed Tony Hill to break his pass receiving marks. The Cowboys from 1973 to 1983 (Pearson's career) had finished in the top 10 of offense every year. You do that by running and passing the ball. So Pearson's effect on his team had much more impact that any WR of his era which is why he was an All Decade WR of the 70's.

I doubt career length has anything to do with the selection committee's contradictory stance concerning Pearson.

There is just a bias against Cowboy players because of the fame they had as players on America's team. Drew Pearson was one of the most famous Dallas Cowboys of that era.

Yet the same selection committee named Pearson, whom I doubt many would disagree was one of the most famous players for the franchise at the time, to their 1970s NFL All-Decade Team despite any assumed bias. It leaves me questioning what changed inside their minds so radically? The same committee sat down in 1980 and collectively identified Pearson as one of a select few of the league's best players in the seventies. Seemingly, a fraction of the same committee reluctantly agree with a dozen appointed panel judges for the centennial class that Pearson was one of the league's best players forty years later.

It is odd.

 

[quickccc]

According to Rick "Goose " Gosslein, (senior HOF committee member) the HOF voters had already had 2 Cowboys members selected inductees in one single year - Cliff Harris and Jimmie Johnson ... they were not gonna have 3 Cowboys members in the same year and risk a bias protest.

But Goose did say that Pearson being an All Decade performer should no doubt make it in next year especially with so much more controversy and sympathy this year on Pearson snub.

 

[big dog cowboy]

According to Rick "Goose " Gosslein, (senior HOF committee member) the HOF voters had already had 2 Cowboys members selected inductees in one single year - Cliff Harris and Jimmie Johnson ... they were not gonna have 3 Cowboys members in the same year and risk a bias protest.

But Goose did say that Pearson being an All Decade performer should no doubt make it in next year especially with so much more controversy and sympathy this year on Pearson snub.

Thank you for posting this!

Bottom line is pretty simple on this....If the HOF voters had done the right thing years ago with Pearson, there wouldn't be any bias or controversy talk over him in the first place!

 

[Cowboysheelsreds053]

Thank you for posting this!

Bottom line is pretty simple on this....If the HOF voters had done the right thing years ago with Pearson, there wouldn't be any bias or controversy talk over him in the first place!

He should get in along on this pick speech.

 

[zrinkill]

An Injustice

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

Well how come John Taylor is not in the HOF opposite of J. Rice? He has some rings.

He has 2 rings and 5000 career receiving yards. If you think that’s comparative to Stallworth then you’re just being pedantic.

 

[Cowboysheelsreds053]

He has 2 rings and 5000 career receiving yards. If you think that’s comparative to Stallworth then you’re just being pedantic.

If pedantic means smart that is me my man, as Muhammad Ali would tell Howard C. Lol. I was not being seriously about JT but a long way from being pedantic my man. TRUST ME!

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

If pedantic means smart that is me my man, as Muhammad Ali would tell Howard C. Lol. I was not being seriously about JT but a long way from being pedantic my man. TRUST ME!

“Never Trust a Man Who Says, “Trust Me.”

 

[SSoup]

It’s a good question... unfortunately, and I don’t like it, but the answer probably comes down to four rings to one when it came to prioritizing. You can’t like it for say Aikman and Haley and then not like it for Stallworth. Well, you can... but we know how that goes.

You're right. We like when it works in our favor. We put on our tinfoil hats when it works in others' favor.

Everything's a conspiracy theory with our fanbase. These two players really have nothing to do with each other, and anyone trying to cite Stallworth within their argument for Pearson is not doing Pearson any favors.

Stallworth's regular season stats were better, his playoff stats were better, and he won more rings.

If some fanbase was citing Troy Aikman for why their QB should make the hall of fame even though their QB had worse stats and only 1 ring, we'd be laughing at how dumb their argument was. And we'd be laughing at the choice to deputize Aikman into their argument when comparing them really makes their guy's case look worse.

 

[Cowboysheelsreds053]

“Never Trust a Man Who Says, “Trust Me.”

Russian roulette my man.

 

[MarcusRock]

According to Rick "Goose " Gosslein, (senior HOF committee member) the HOF voters had already had 2 Cowboys members selected inductees in one single year - Cliff Harris and Jimmie Johnson ... they were not gonna have 3 Cowboys members in the same year and risk a bias protest.

And yet, fans of this team with 2 current inductees are STILL claiming bias the other way.