Off-Topic Forum

If Owens and Moss are in the HOF then Cliff Branch should be in.   Just look at his stats and 3 Super Bowl rings.    

If personality and character were criteria it would be the exact opposite.

No argument from me, either. Maybe the squeaky wheel syndrome played a part (though I doubt it seriously) in Branch's exclusion.

I know it was a different era, but "look at his stats" doesn't help you...

Cliff Branch: 501 Rec, 8685 yds, 67 TD, 47.5 YPG, 4 Pro Bowls, 3 All-Pro

Randy Moss: 982 Rec., 15292 yds, 156 TD, 70.1 YPG, 6 Pro Bowls, 4 All-Pro

Terrell Owens: 1078 Rec., 15934 yds., 153 TD, 72.8 YPG, 6 Pro Bowls, 5 All-Pro

Sorry, but based on the stats alone, it ain't even close.  You'd be better off comparing him to guys like Lynn Swann and John Stallworth, both of whom were contemporaries of Branch and have similar or worse raw numbers...

I was disgusted with the selection of Owens (and one other) to the Hall.  I guess professionalism (or lack of) has no bearing.

Branch played in era where WRs were hammered and punished not coddled like  Moss and Owens.   Touch a receiver today and you get a flag.     Branch also played when teams had running games unlike Owens and Moss.   It's all passing since the 1990s.      Today's wide receivers run out of bounds rather go for more yards and take a hit.      It was a different league then.  Much tougher on WRs.

Glenn, do you adocate moving Cleveland great Otto Graham from the HOF because he is not even in the top 50  for all time passing yardage leaders?    Different eras and that is why Branch belongs. 

I know.  I even SAID I knew it was a different era and suggested you compare him to his contemporaries.  I would have no problem with Clif Branch being in the Hall of Fame.  My post was to point out the flaw in your argument.  You are the one who stated:

"If Owens and Moss are in the HOF then Cliff Branch should be in.   Just look at his stats"  

I was just pointing out that if you want to advocate for Ciff Branch, that is the wrong approach.  You encouraged people to look at the stats and gave the impression that statistics would show that if Owens and Moss deserve induction, so does Branch.  The stats alone don't show that.  If you believe that the eras are different (and I agree) and that a direct statistical comparison is unfair, don't start your argument by mentioning Moss and Owens and saying "look at the stats".

As I said, better comparisons would be players from the same era:

Lynn Swann: 335 Rec/5462 yds/51 TD (doesn't belong IMO)

John Stallworth: 537/8723/63

Drew Pearson: 489/7822/48 (not in HoF)

Paul Warfield 427/8565/85 (a little earlier than Branch)

Harold Carmichael: 590/8985/79 (not in HoF)

Steve Largent: 819/13089/100

Charlie Joiner: 750/12146/65

Branch's numbers dont' overwhelm you like Largent or Joiner, but they hold up pretty well against most of these guys.  As I said, I would have no problem with Branch in the HoF, but statistically he's not a no-brainer, even in his own era.  By the numbers, he's close to guys like Stallworth (in), Warfield (in), Carmichael (not in), and Pearson (not in).

Sorry, I thought people on this  site  would realize that they were from a different era. It is kind of obvious. I think the members here are generally a smart group     Okay, look at  Branch's stats, he is from a different era so don't let that cloud your judgement as to his HOF qualifications.    Also take into consideration the type of person the three receivers are.  Seems the Football HOF doesn't really care about anything except what is done on the field, witness the inclusion of Ray Lewis in the Hall.      All in favor of Branch, say "aye".

AYE!!!!!