MAJOR NEWS - WR 88!!!!

[Matts4313]

On 8/19/2020 at 8:46 PM, TheRealMcCoy said:

Deion Sanders was right when he said its too easy to get into the Hall of Fame.

This is the most dumb thing you've said. Pearson is to is what Dawkins is to you. He invented 88. 

[TheRealMcCoy]

2 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

This is the most dumb thing you've said. Pearson is to is what Dawkins is to you. He invented 88. 

Yikes....

Pearson is an all time great Cowboy and one of the better 70s receivers obviously (he's on the all decade team) but 70s receivers weren't that good honestly (not just speaking from a statistical point of view). I give credit to him for what he did helping those Cowboys teams win titles, but his TDs and even yards per year aren't really THAT good. He did lead the league in yards in a pretty down year. I get the argument that his peers are in who he is comparable to, so why not Pearson? 

But, I stand by my statement that Sanders is right about the HoF being too easy to get into.

I didn't get to watch Pearson live (I'm 28 years old) and from highlights its obvious he had a knack for the deep pass, but he seems more like Hall of Very Good and a Cowboys ring of honor guy than a definite Hall of Famer.

Never compare Pearson to Dawkins though. Dawkins was a pretty obvious HoF when he hung it up.

[TheRealMcCoy]

And, it would be "dumbest".... not "most dumb", Matts.

[TheRealMcCoy]

On 8/19/2020 at 9:25 PM, Texas_OutLaw7 said:

The best argument I have ever heard is: Can you tell the history of the NFL without a player - if you can't / they are a HOFer.

That is more for a guy like Joe Namath than Drew Pearson.

You can't tell the NFL's history without that historic SB win predicted by Namath which helped lead to the merger between the NFL and AFL.

That is a player you can't tell the history of the league without.

Now should Namath be in the Hall from a purely statistical standpoint? Probably not according to most.

[Matts4313]

9 minutes ago, TheRealMcCoy said:

Yikes....

Pearson is an all time great Cowboy and one of the better 70s receivers obviously (he's on the all decade team) but 70s receivers weren't that good honestly (not just speaking from a statistical point of view). I give credit to him for what he did helping those Cowboys teams win titles, but his TDs and even yards per year aren't really THAT good. He did lead the league in yards in a pretty down year. I get the argument that his peers are in who he is comparable to, so why not Pearson? 

But, I stand by my statement that Sanders is right about the HoF being too easy to get into.

I didn't get to watch Pearson live (I'm 28 years old) and from highlights its obvious he had a knack for the deep pass, but he seems more like Hall of Very Good and a Cowboys ring of honor guy than a definite Hall of Famer.

Never compare Pearson to Dawkins though. Dawkins was a pretty obvious HoF when he hung it up.

I stand by what I said. We love Pearson like you love Dawkins. 

[TheRealMcCoy]

Just now, Matts4313 said:

I stand by what I said. We love Pearson like you love Dawkins. 

That's absolutely fair. Not telling you not to love your guy.

I'm sure if Pearson was in right now and Carmichael wasn't there would be a bunch of Eagles fans who watched him growing up calling for him to be in.

[Matts4313]

5 minutes ago, TheRealMcCoy said:

That is more for a guy like Joe Namath than Drew Pearson.

You can't tell the NFL's history without that historic SB win predicted by Namath which helped lead to the merger between the NFL and AFL.

That is a player you can't tell the history of the league without.

Now should Namath be in the Hall from a purely statistical standpoint? Probably not according to most.

There is literally no logic that will apply here. As a fan base we love witten. We love ware. We love Pearson. You could tell me he killed half the us population. I am still advocating him for the HOF.

[TheRealMcCoy]

3 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

There is literally no logic that will apply here. As a fan base we love witten. We love ware. We love Pearson. You could tell me he killed half the us population. I am still advocating him for the HOF.

[Texas_OutLaw7]

1 hour ago, TheRealMcCoy said:

That is more for a guy like Joe Namath than Drew Pearson.

You can't tell the NFL's history without that historic SB win predicted by Namath which helped lead to the merger between the NFL and AFL.

That is a player you can't tell the history of the league without.

Now should Namath be in the Hall from a purely statistical standpoint? Probably not according to most.

I don't agree. But I don't particularly care enough to argue the point, either. 

Our recency bias is exceedingly apparent. Judging era's becomes an impossibility. 

[TheRealMcCoy]

Just now, Texas_OutLaw7 said:

I don't agree. But I don't particularly care enough to argue the point, either. 

Our recency bias is exceedingly apparent. Judging era's becomes an impossibility. 

It's a losing argument for me like Matts said. 

Obviously the Hall means so much to Pearson, despite being loved by Cowboys fans, being in the ring of honor, and having a SB win. 

So for his sake hopefully he gets in.

[Dallas94Ware]

Cowboys hate dating back to his era is why he didnt get in till now.

[Northland]

I grew up in the 70's and became a fan of the NFL during the decade. Yeah I'm biased because I'm a Cowboys fan.  Having said that Pearson was money.  He was clutch.  He deserves to be in the HOF.  Let's not forget Tom Flores either.  Great coach.  When you coached the Raiders you also had to learn to manage Al Davis which he did.  Replacing a legend is tough.  Not only did he replace Madden he led the Raiders to two championships.  Both Pearson and Flores are deserving.