Blue's resume was boosted when he picked up three first-team All-conference awards in '74, a year in which he was not selected by the Associated Press. Be sure to check back in tomorrow to see the All-decade defense of the '70s, and comment on whatever you like below. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2. Both comments and pings are currently closed. FYI - Fran Tarkenton was injured in He broke his leg in a Week Nine game versus Cincinnati and was out for the rest of the year.
I didn't know if you knew that. It was the first time Tark had ever suffered a season-ending injury. Tark returned in '78 and was "productive", but also threw a lot of INTs. Interesting, to say the least. Pittsburgh, winners and deservedly so of four Super Bowls, get four players named to 1st team and 2nd team honors by the HoF writers.
- African-American History Timeline: 1970 to 1979.
- What Happened in the s inc. News, Popular Culture, Prices and Technology?
- The Black Guard (The Long War, Book 1).
But on AV rankings alone they would get zero. We should probably wait till tomorrow before fully discussing the Steelers.
Vote for LSU Basketball's All-Decade Teams: '60s and '70s
They do pretty well on the defensive side of the ball ;. The sad part about Langer is, even though he's also a first ballot Hall Of Famer on top of everything else, he's not even considered the best center on his own team and even diehard DolFans totally forget about him because of Dwight Stephenson. My apologies, guys. I'm actually a proponent of the AV, although you couldn't tell from my post - it was worded poorly.
I'll wait until tomorrow's part two, but my thought is that the Steelers have been given too much weight - particularly by the Hall of Fame writers - for having won four Super Bowls. What the writers seem to lose sight of is player performance over the other 1, regular season games that took place from Granted, Pittsburgh won consistently from until the end of the decade, but teams like the Rams and Vikings won just as much and put more players in the Pro Bowls but seem to fall way below in terms of Hall of Fame selections and the all-decade team.
Earl Campbell over Chuck Foreman?! Campbell played two years. Foreman seven. Foreman was in five consecutive Pro Bowls to start his career and if he hadn't been hit in the eye with a snow ball in the final game of by Buffalo Bills fans, he would have won the NFC triple crown - rushing title, scoring title, and pass receptions title.
He might even have tied O.
The Greatest Quarterbacks of All Time — The 1970's
Way too many Steelers on the Hall's list. Why even do an All-Decade team if you're simply going to award the team with the most Super Bowl wins with the most players? The same has gone with Hall of Fame election votes. Five Steelers make it in on their first year of eligibility. Granted, Pittsburgh was a dynasty in the '70s, but on this All-Decade team some worthy players were left off the list because they either didn't play in a Super Bowl or lost four of them Vikings.
Definite bias here.
BTW, nice job of analysis. Something I have noticed is that the multiple Super Bowl winners of the 60s and 70s Packers, Cowboys, Dolphins, Steelers, even the Raiders incluiding their 80's championships have already many players enshrined each in the Hall of Fame, but if you look at the multiple Super Bowl winners of the 80s and 90s 49ers, Redskins, Giants, Cowboys they have very few and it doesn't look that they will increase significantilly in the following years.
Foreword-Larry Keith > Compare Discount Book Prices & Save up to 90% > sentherachamra.tk
I really think is worthy of another topic, because if you look that a SB winner team of the 60s and 70s have 8 or 9 enshrinees and a coouple more to discuss , the 80s and 90s have 2 or 3, and maybe a couple more worthy of enshrinment. By my quick count i. Larry Allen is a strong candidate, although things dwindle after that Norton, Haley, Woodson, Newton. I suspect Dallas will end up with five. Roger Craig, Haley again , Jack Reynolds and Romanowski seem to have the best chances, and I don't like them very much. Regardless, you make an interesting observation.
The most HOFers on a team that didn't win a title in the season or question or right around it, was the '66 Redskins. I talked about them in Podcast 2. As for the 49ers, if you look also in their '94 team who also had Deion Sanders and Ken Norton you will have to consider Ricky Watters who hadn't had much support, even that he is the only players to have rush for 1, yards for three different teams, and had an outstanding game at the Super Bowl , but it's interesting that none offensive lineman from all their SB teams really has no chance of being enshrined, but you have many ProBowl quallity players Cross, Fahnhorst, Quillan, Sapolu, McIntyre, Barton, Wallace.
I don't think it's because fewer players are getting elected to the Hall, but more teams being added to the league and more even distribution of talent now. Without discussing the old teams, I don't think any of the players you mentioned are serious snubs. There are many QBs more Canton-ready than Simms, and he's probably got the best case of those Giants. Ricky Watters was a solid and valuable player, but he was never a dominant player. None of the SF OL really have the resumes to get in.
For whatever reason, the recent championship teams don't have the star power to deserve five or six HOFers. I'm sure free agency and expansion have something to do with that. I have not given serious thought as to whether or not those Packers and Steelers teams were deserving of five or six or more HOFers, although I'm sure we can all find a couple of players from those teams whom we find undeserving. They won a title in 55, but then Graham retired and they didn't win another until They won a title in , but that team didn't have players like Sayers or Butkus.
The 49ers had 6 HOF players 3 in the backfield three years in a row. The Giants had 6 HOF players, and their last title at that point was I was speaking more generally about winning a title - most of the players on the other teams you mentioned at least one a title at some point with the team in question. I was just focusing on how the Redskins never got much out of their guys.
Of their six HOFers, none of them made a playoff game with Washington except for Taylor, and that wasn't until ' Maybe it's just because I'm a niners fan or maybe I just think of dynasty in different terms, but I'd consider the 49ers dynasty as stretching from to I know their last SB was , but they were an average team in those 4 later years. If it were and you hadn't seen them fall apart yet, wouldn't you consider their dynasty still alive? If you extend it to 98, you can throw T.
- Wages by metro area for selected occupations, 1970-1979.
- Wages, 1970-1979.
- See a Problem?.
- CLR via C# (4th Edition)?
- History of the Super Bowl?
Interesting that the 90's Bills already have 4 players Kelly, Thomas, Smith, Lofton and the coach in there. I agree with giving Foreman a spot instead of Campbell based on overall impact on the decade, but I think Franco should get the other second team rb spot. True, Mitchell was the better receiving threat though Franco was adequate in that role, when called upon and he did have a pretty impressive stretch from , but I think Franco had the better overall body of work. He rushed for over 1, yards in every season he played in during the decade except the '73 season, during which he was slowed by injury for part of the year, and he accounted for almost twice as many TDs as Mitchell did And, while it shouldn't be the be-all end-all, you do have to take into account the fact that Franco generally played very well in postseason games while Mitchell did not.
I've got Mitchell's three best seasons being better than any of Harris' best years, but Harris' fifth best season is better than Mitchell's fourth best. The problem with Harris is he just didn't have any big years; I've got '75 and '76 as Harris' best years, but he had 9 and 8 fumbles 3 and 2 recovered in those two seasons. He never once had above average receiving numbers, and he only ranked in the top seven in yards from scrimmage in one season.
Growing up Tobacco Free: Preventing Nicotine Addiction in Children and Youths.
But yes, Harris was more consistent and had some huge post-season moments. Mitchell's an underrated player, though. My research for the NFL HOF and various sports software companies, in adddition to probably having watched more entire NFL games from the '70s than anyone alive today other than NFL Coaches from that era , is what lead me to hit you with three question marks.
During this era, especially , it was extremely difficult for a receiver to get open. They could be hit anywhere on the field, until the QB released the ball, there was no 5 yard rule. Offensive linemen were not allowed to use their hands while blocking. Nearly every play you witness in NFL Football today would be called back for holding in the '70s and the majority of the pound plus offensive linemen of today would have to go on a diet or they would be cut from the team.
The s would be my first choice. Paul Warfield stands out in my mind as the number 1 receiver. I don't really go by stats, I've seen all these guys play and rate them on ability. He spent his entire career with running teams, Browns and Dolphins and played in an era where teams ran the ball more often then they passed.