New AFL Library List!!

It’s a good book (Otis Taylor was my second favorite Chief next to Len Dawson.) Author Stallard & Otis describe among other some of the injuries OT dealt with & differences training regimines yesteryear and today. Those injuries, as well differences offensive scheme then KC’s comparison others like OAK, NY & SD & comparison today’s rule-enabled WR’s (no bump & run aft 5 yards) are enough so that #89 will likely never get into the Hall of Fame, I say with disappointment; course, ‘targets’ too would have to be taken into consideration, offensive scheme each player/team, etc.

Why do I say this? HOF enshrinement (if you can get past the fact be no consistency in the method their madness, voting) is a numbers game: if you don’t have them you aren’t likely merit inclusion. Along these lines, a former AFL receiver ‘not’ in the Hall of Fame actually had better career numbers (albeit slight) than OT an almost identical # of games played/years credited, the two so close in numbers it’s fairly amazing. That one guy had a Hall of Fame WR teammate across from him early days, also interesting.

Believe I’ve read you are an OT for HOF proponent. When I think of Otis, his highlight reel grabs immediately come to mind, many them game-changers & game winners. His post season stats aside (where he shone brightly), I discovered OT’s career numbers regular season career to be a bit less than former Charger, Gary Garrison. Alworth (Garrison’s HOF teammate, across from him), Don Maynard, George Sauer, Fred Biletnikoff and Warren Wells would’ve been my top late 60’s choices, Otis Taylor good as any of them my opine but his raw numbers not on par the others, generally.

The question presents: does having an equally great or greater WR other side the field from you open up more possibilities, or, limit opportunities, comparison a WR who does not have the same situation? I think of PIT Steelers Stallworth & Swann; that both got into the HOF (despite Swann’s numbers being lesser than Otis Taylor & Gary Garrison), curious. HOF an ‘Individual’ measure moreso ‘team’ (one would think?), make no sense.

Garrison was a fine receiver, but I wouldn’t have named him among my Top 5 WR’s late 1960’s AFL or early merger NFL. Yet, final analysis, Garrison and Taylor each played 11 years (though a bit of a misnomer, OT played just 3 offensive snaps ’75 afore his career ended, Garrison just 3 games ’77 his finale.) Difference: just 4 games career (advantage Garrison), difference only 5 catches (advantage Taylor), 1 td (Garrison), 232 yards (Garrison) & a difference of 1 Pro Bowl (advantage Garrison.)

Garrison 405 7,538 58 18.6 125 games started
O.Taylor 410 7,306 57 18.1 95 games started

Upshot: Garrison was ‘better’ than Taylor strictly by most of the numbers… would not have thought so but the numbers affirm. Thus, an argument can be made that Gary should go into Canton before Otis if one or both in fact are deserving. This seems to suggest ‘hype’, ‘PR’ and our own preference ‘style’ can influence perception, no matter stats.
That it was easy to locate an Otis Taylor highlight package online/youtube (below) but not a Gary Garrison one, seemingly confirmation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyKOuTwXKD0