Stanley Morgan shafted once again for the HOF (link)

[Actual Pats Fan]

Don't forget about Julius Adams and Darryl Stingley...

They belong in the Patriots' HOF...but not Canton

 

[State]

The Steamer being bypassed is an injustice. As such, my reaction is growing stronger over time. Such a disgrace!

 

[Sam Bam Cunningham]

anti Patriots bias in pre Brady era

 

[lancerman]

Sterling Sharpe, Steve McMichael among seniors finalists for Hall of Fame Class of 2024

The Pro Football Hall of Fame seniors committee has decided on 12 finalists for the Class of 2024.

www.nbcsports.com

How do you put Sterling Sharpe as your top senior WR candidate and not Morgan?

Sharpe:
595 receptions
8100 yards
13.7 YPC
65 TDs

Morgan:
557 receptions
10716 yards
19.4 YPC
72 TDs

Morgan played many more seasons, but he also played in the running back era, whereas Sharpe played at the start of the throwing era. Sharpe's QB was a gunslinger who threw constantly, while Morgan played on the best running team of all time.

Morgan being left out in favor of Sharpe is unjustifiable.

The issue with this is that the HOF values a higher peak over stat accumulation via longevity.

Sharpe has those stats despite playing 57% of the career length of Morgan. Which is why Sharpe has 3 First Team All Pros and Morgan only has 2 Second Team all pros. Also why Sharpe led the league in receptions 3x, TD's 2x, and yards once while Morgan only did yards once.

Like let's be real, if Sharpe didn't get injured, he could have been mediocre to average the rest of his career and he would have blown past Morgan in raw numbers.

Ideally both should get in. But people remember Sharpe more because of his high peak. Morgan was always going to have a rough time due to lack of accolades. It's hard to get in as a skill player with only 2 Second Team All Pros.

 

[upstater1]

The issue with this is that the HOF values a higher peak over stat accumulation via longevity.

Sharpe has those stats despite playing 57% of the career length of Morgan. Which is why Sharpe has 3 First Team All Pros and Morgan only has 2 Second Team all pros. Also why Sharpe led the league in receptions 3x, TD's 2x, and yards once while Morgan only did yards once.

Like let's be real, if Sharpe didn't get injured, he could have been mediocre to average the rest of his career and he would have blown past Morgan in raw numbers.

Ideally both should get in. But people remember Sharpe more because of his high peak. Morgan was always going to have a rough time due to lack of accolades. It's hard to get in as a skill player with only 2 Second Team All Pros.

I already went over this though. It's different eras. The Patriots won in those seasons by having the best running game of all time.

Flash forward to the 1990s, and you have Brett Favre slinging the ball all over the place. Morgan has to be measured against the guys in his era. And his numbers stand out.

 

[Gumby]

The issue with this is that the HOF values a higher peak over stat accumulation via longevity.

Sharpe …

Ideally both should get in. But people remember Sharpe more because of his high peak. Morgan was always going to have a rough time due to lack of accolades. It's hard to get in as a skill player with only 2 Second Team All Pros.

Need to finish that sentence correctly..,

because of his high peak coming in the nfl-tv-dominance era which happened to coincide w the start-middle of the open passing era ; as well as him being associated w a high profile passer.

Guys who are catching from face of the nfl QBs like paymeaton or montana or Bradshaw just have an easier road than guys working w names like Grogan. Nobody outside NE except for a few old jester/phish fans would even be able to tell you what sport Grogan played.

 

[italian pat patriot]

A disgrace...a disrespect to an amazing playier

Stanley Morgan was an incredible playier

For many many years

 

[Salsalife]

Numbers don't lie. Fact is the fact. Data Matters! Fight for Mr. Morgan!

 

[Rob0729]

IDK, Sterling Sharpe was arguably one of the top two greatest receivers during the short time he played. He was a three time first team All Pro. He was the best receiver in the league in1992 and top two or three in 1989 and 1993 (and that is only because he was in the era or arguably the best receiver of all time of Jerry Rice in his prime). If injuries didn't shorten his career, he was on track to be a first ballot HOFer.

I think Stanley Morgan should be in the HOF, but I think Sharpe has an argument to be more deserving.

 

[Chevy]

IDK, Sterling Sharpe was arguably one of the top two greatest receivers during the short time he played. He was a three time first team All Pro. He was the best receiver in the league in1992 and top two or three in 1989 and 1993 (and that is only because he was in the era or arguably the best receiver of all time of Jerry Rice in his prime). If injuries didn't shorten his career, he was on track to be a first ballot HOFer.

I think Stanley Morgan should be in the HOF, but I think Sharpe has an argument to be more deserving.

Sterling Sharpe was shockingly good. Contesting Rice level good. The injury killed what could have been an epic career.
That said, HoF is not based on what could have been, but on what was.

Sterling Sharpe - 7 years
595 rec / 8134 yds / 13.7 yds per catch / 65 TDs
Average Season - 85/1162/13.7/9.3

Stanley Morgan - 14 years
557 rec / 10716 yds / 19.2 yds per catch / 72 TDs
Average Season - 39.8 /767.6/19.3/5.1

Sterling played his career in the beginning of the pass-first league - much less mugging of receivers. Morgan played nearly his entire career in the age of "Receivers? Meh - mug them all you want."

I am willing to bet that if you swapped these two, the results (by era) would be nearly identical. Sharpe was an amazing route runner with some speed. Morgan had amazing speed and ran very good routes.

Morgan then Sharpe, only due to Morgan having to wait much longer.

But Gino before either of them.

 

[upstater1]

Sterling Sharpe was shockingly good. Contesting Rice level good. The injury killed what could have been an epic career.
That said, HoF is not based on what could have been, but on what was.

Sterling Sharpe - 7 years
595 rec / 8134 yds / 13.7 yds per catch / 65 TDs
Average Season - 85/1162/13.7/9.3

Stanley Morgan - 14 years
557 rec / 10716 yds / 19.2 yds per catch / 72 TDs
Average Season - 39.8 /767.6/19.3/5.1

Sterling played his career in the beginning of the pass-first league - much less mugging of receivers. Morgan played nearly his entire career in the age of "Receivers? Meh - mug them all you want."

I am willing to bet that if you swapped these two, the results (by era) would be nearly identical. Sharpe was an amazing route runner with some speed. Morgan had amazing speed and ran very good routes.

Morgan then Sharpe, only due to Morgan having to wait much longer.

But Gino before either of them.

The averaging of their numbers is also a disservice to Morgan. It includes the low volume 4 season at the end of his career.

In the Super Bowl year, when the Patriots finally started throwing the ball, Morgan had 84 receptions for 1500 yds, 10 TDs, 17.8 ypg.

This is what Morgan would have given them if he had played 10 years later.

It compares well with Sharpe's best years.

 

[Chevy]

The averaging of their numbers is also a disservice to Morgan. It includes the low volume 4 season at the end of his career.

In the Super Bowl year, when the Patriots finally started throwing the ball, Morgan had 84 receptions for 1500 yds, 10 TDs, 17.8 ypg.

This is what Morgan would have given them if he had played 10 years later.

It compares well with Sharpe's best years.

I don't see it as a disservice - it just is. And, with the loose rules applied to DB's, and a drop off at the end of his career, Morgan still managed 19.2/catch, and very solid numbers in that career average. I think it says more about him, not less.

 

[upstater1]

I don't see it as a disservice - it just is. And, with the loose rules applied to DB's, and a drop off at the end of his career, Morgan still managed 19.2/catch, and very solid numbers in that career average. I think it says more about him, not less.

Less in the sense that players who have long careers tend to wind down.

If your career is cut short at its apex, your avgs will look better than a guy who spent a few years not even starting on the Colts.