How is Sterling Sharpe in the HOF but not Stanley Morgan?

[Brotherblues]

I don't think we need to undermine Sharpe to prop up Morgan. Sharpe 100% belongs in the Hall and so does Morgan.

Sharpe legit rivaled Rice in talks for #1 WR in the league in the 90s before his career ended so abruptly. He was widely regarded as equal or better to other HoF WRs of his time like Irvin, Reed, and Carter. There's no way he's not a HoFer.

Sharpe belongs and it's a travesty that Morgan isn't in. Both are true.

 

[1960Pats]

Explain:

Sharpe 8134 yards for 13.7 Y/R 65 TDs

Morgan 10716 yards for 19.2 Y/R & 72 TDs

Because the HOF is a joke.

 

[upstater1]

I don't think we need to undermine Sharpe to prop up Morgan. Sharpe 100% belongs in the Hall and so does Morgan.

No one did that.

 

[upstater1]

I never thought Stanley was the best WR of his era, or even close to it
I thought Stanley had a very good 3 year run, and 1 additional very good season, over the course of a 14 year career
I would have Stanley not in if I had a vote

There were 4 better in the 1980s. Who else do you have over him?

Lofton, Rice, Largent and Monk. That's who I have.

Harold Carmichael, Sterling Sharpe, Lynn Swann, John Stallworth, Drew Pearson.

You think all these guys clear Morgan?

 

[1960Pats]

Today it might be called, depending on the QB... But what made that call Historically egregious is that type of contact - the defender's hand/arm first hitting the QB's hand/arm THEN his head - was NEVER being called RTP in those days, ESPECIALLY in the POs. I mean, are you ****ing ****TING ME DREITH ?!?!?!?

And that wasn't the only **** call.

Free at Last. Free at Last. Thank Walt Coleman we're free at last.

Btw, I put a very successful 25 year curse on Oakland after they whined and cried so much about the tuck rule (the NYFL got so tired of them crying that they changed the rule 10 years later). Not only has that curse worked vs them on the field, they had to move twice since too. Technically, they have until Feb of 27 to win something but I don't think they'll make it.

 

[1960Pats]

There were 4 better in the 1980s. Who else do you have over him?

Lofton, Rice, Largent and Monk. That's who I have.

Harold Carmichael, Sterling Sharpe, Lynn Swann, John Stallworth, Drew Pearson.

You think all these guys clear Morgan?

There seems to be a lot more NFC there with those nine players. Even the two AFC guys played for teams who were NFC at one time.

The Pats are underrepresented and I don't see that changing.

 

[upstater1]

There seems to be a lot more NFC there with those nine players. Even the two AFC guys played for teams who were NFC at one time.

The Pats are underrepresented and I don't see that changing.

Seattle was AFC at the time so it's 3 AFC WRs.

The numbers for Carmichael, Pearson, Swann and Stallworth are all depressed by the era they played in. Only Largent clears from that era.

Rice, Lofton, Sharpe are on the younger side and got to experience half their careers in the 1990s. So their stats are far beyond.

This is just further proof that the top WRs whose career spans the 1970s and 1980s had depressed stats compared to the guys who were mid 1980s into the 1990s.

 

[rkarp1]

There were 4 better in the 1980s. Who else do you have over him?

Lofton, Rice, Largent and Monk. That's who I have.

Harold Carmichael, Sterling Sharpe, Lynn Swann, John Stallworth, Drew Pearson.

You think all these guys clear Morgan?

Mark Clayton. Mike Quick. Wes Chandler. Roy Green. Al Toon all in the discussion of equal or greater than Stanley imo.
certainly, teams, coaching, QB all factor.
also, Stanley played 14 years. many did not. but Stanley really had that 3 year run, 9 years of average, and that 1 other good season. 4 of 14 season very good. 10 seasons average or less imo

 

[Froob]

Another year, another time Rodney Harrison is snubbed

 

[upstater1]

Mark Clayton. Mike Quick. Wes Chandler. Roy Green. Al Toon all in the discussion of equal or greater than Stanley imo.
certainly, teams, coaching, QB all factor.
also, Stanley played 14 years. many did not. but Stanley really had that 3 year run, 9 years of average, and that 1 other good season. 4 of 14 season very good. 10 seasons average or less imo

You're judging him by 1990s standards when you mention his good run.

The people you put over him like Quick, Chandler and Green had even fewer good seasons and a lot of average ones, if that's your standard.

It should be to Stanley's benefit that he had a longer career, ESPECIALLY since he gained 2000, 3000, or 4000 yards more than those guys.

At this point, it's just an effort to denigrate Morgan

 

[rkarp1]

You're judging him by 1990s standards when you mention his good run.

The people you put over him like Quick, Chandler and Green had even fewer good seasons and a lot of average ones, if that's your standard.

It should be to Stanley's benefit that he had a longer career, ESPECIALLY since he gained 2000, 3000, or 4000 yards more than those guys.

At this point, it's just an effort to denigrate Morgan

saying EQUAL to, or better
just saying each of them were dominant for periods of time, while Stanley was still playing. I don't recall Stanley being dominant, save for 2 seasons. also very good 2 seasons. average the balance. thats not HOF imo
Stan was great, just not great enough

 

[mgteich]

Explain:

Sharpe 8134 yards for 13.7 Y/R 65 TDs

Morgan 10716 yards for 19.2 Y/R & 72 TDs

The answer is that the voters aren't all from Boston.

 

[mgteich]

saying EQUAL to, or better
just saying each of them were dominant for periods of time, while Stanley was still playing. I don't recall Stanley being dominant, save for 2 seasons. also very good 2 seasons. average the balance. thats not HOF imo
Stan was great, just not great enough

In which years did Morgan dominate the league? for how many years?

 

[RobertWeathers]

Another year, another time Rodney Harrison is snubbed

It's complete and total ********....and has nothing to do with stats.

 

[upstater1]

saying EQUAL to, or better
just saying each of them were dominant for periods of time, while Stanley was still playing. I don't recall Stanley being dominant, save for 2 seasons. also very good 2 seasons. average the balance. thats not HOF imo
Stan was great, just not great enough

You would seriously put Quick, Chandler and Green over him?

I just find this unfathomable. Guy averages 20 yards per catch? And you put a guy who has 6000 yards over him?

This is the Twilight Zone.

 

[jlu52]

I don't think we need to undermine Sharpe to prop up Morgan. Sharpe 100% belongs in the Hall and so does Morgan.

Sharpe legit rivaled Rice in talks for #1 WR in the league in the 90s before his career ended so abruptly. He was widely regarded as equal or better to other HoF WRs of his time like Irvin, Reed, and Carter. There's no way he's not a HoFer.

Sharpe belongs and it's a travesty that Morgan isn't in. Both are true.

They both belong in. Sterling deserves Canton, but imo, so does Stanley. Not having Rodney Harrison in the hall illustrates that there is
something rotten in Canton.

 

[captain stone]

Thank you! I stand corrected. I do recall Sterling Sharpe the WR. He was good. But, he shouldn't be in the HOF while Morgan isn't. Thank you for your proper correction! I was still on my 1st cup of coffee when I made my post.

You oughta try what I have when I log-in...

 

[lancerman]

Rodney's biggest reason for not being in is that he was heavily disliked for being considered dirty throughout his career so he always got passed up in votes for accolades like All Pros. The HOF heavily values All Pros, OPOY, DPOY and MVP for getting in. So now that he's eligible, he's light enough on the accolades that are weighed the most and they now get to double dip and treat him like he's borderline and hold it against him without saying it. They are glad they can punish him and hold him off from HOF and they also now can pretend that it's because of him not having enough when the main reason he doesn't is because they were already sticking it to him throughout his career.

It also didn't help that some of his hits were on very high profile and well liked guys like Jerry Rice who are immensely respected by players and voters. So you have pretty notable people that will never go to bat for him and will bad mouth him. It's not like TO where he was a headcase, but players still respected his game so they got pissed that he was being held back. A lot of Rodney's peers are glad he is.

The best thing that could ever happen for Rodney Harrison is for Tom Brady to stay in the media and publicly keep his name in the conversation and say it's bs that he's not in so the voters look stupid on tv and it generates fan discussion.