Lots of comments about other players this blog… not so much about the article’s subject, Otis Taylor; let me remedy that.

If I seem to ramble (and even slobber a bit) it’s only because of my own bias: Otis was, along with QB Len Dawson, my favorite Kansas City Chiefs players, ever… that KC was my favorite team the ‘AFL’ years should be no secret. The topic is ‘Hall of Fame wide receiver comparison’, but I’ll save my comments regarding enshrinement merit in lieu some Taylor-talk the start (I apologize advance for my free-flowing style; unlimited internet paper can cause that : )

‘What might have been’ too often has been my reflection on not only Taylor’s career, but part & parcel thereof that of my Chiefs the 1966-1969 AFL era, and the earliest couple years post merger, NFL. Suffice to say any team/ player/fan can use such a ‘rewind’ button… I’ll not disappoint.

In my opinion Otis Taylor takes a back seat to no WR who who has ever played football, least as far back as the late 1950’s when I first became aware the game.
Stat wise? Mostly, no. Terms talent and excitement? Without question.

When speaking of a ‘greatest’ or ‘best’ whatever, there is no such thing – said is more about personal preference, moreso ‘style points’, under closer scrutiny. I say this re: football as other sports. That an Barry Bonds hit 762 home runs to Babe Ruth’s 714 does not impress me much as the fact Ruth needed only 8399 at bats to do so. Compare this to Bonds needing an extra 837 (or 9236) to even ‘tie’ Ruth 714; when Bonds had a similar # at bats as Ruth 8399, he’d but 619 home runs. That Bonds finished his career with almost 1500 more at bats but only 48 more home runs suggests that he merely continued running past the finish line of a race that Ruth had already won.

I reference such difference in ‘opportunity’ because it plays a part in analyzing a players’ ‘greatness’ compared another’s. Similarly in football, team ‘scheme’ on offense can skew results, not to mention supporting personnel/teammates, etc. Despite my Dawson & Chiefs allegiance, I’ve often wondered what Taylor might have put up stat-wise had he played on a team like the Raiders, Chargers or Jets, Lamonica, Hadl and Namath. I’ve no doubt his numbers would – at minimum – rival any of the WRs who played on those team the 1960’s.

~

Otis Taylor remains the most graceful wide receiver I ever saw. There are a few others that linger in memory: Lance Alworth and Paul Warfield come to mind. The difference was that size-wise, those two were relative ‘specks’ compared to Taylor. The referenced players went about 6’0 each & weighed the vicinity 185 if that, according reports (which are notoriously specious at times then & now.)

Otis Taylor was listed variously 6’2-6’4 in his career, and most usually 215 lbs. I had the privilege of talking to Otis on more than one occasion, and among the info gleaned from him was that he was 6’3 and played at 227 lbs. That is along the lines a latter-day Terrell Owens size-wise. More than 35 years since ‘OT’ last played, there are still not a plethora of NFL receivers who weigh almost 230 lbs. circa 2013, even with the advance training/nutrition and expansion of teams & roster size. You likely can’t name more than a couple without sneaking a peak at current day rosters,

A review of old magazine articles the day affirms that in hindsight team ‘PR’ types & writers routinely ‘overhyped’ players both AFL & NFL as to their size, speed, etc. The man himself proved to be the authority on all things Taylor. Otis told me he ran a 4.5 40 time back in his prime mid-60’s, this in contrast magazine stories which referenced 4.3 and 9.6 100. As an example the times, an Alworth was said to run 9.3 (also an exaggeration; likely closer to 9.6 his time, but regardless of time or player, the selling of a league, its players, and tickets took precedence. Excitement, like the Chrysler/Dodge sponsored AFL, automobiles – the ‘Charger’ comes to mind, ‘Dodge Fever’ the hook.)

Back to #89.

Be it a player ‘sport’, a car ‘style’, a singer ‘song’ or ‘music’ group etc. subjective bias be plenty; ditto pro football Hall of Fame voting as to a measure & criteria, based on the evidence.

Otis Taylor is not in the NFL Hall of Fame. Based on his ‘impact’ he should be, without question. The ‘big catch’ was his trademark, AFL Title Games as well Superbowl’s. He made the one-handed catch look almost routine, employing said so often. And not for show I might add, the course of a regulation game.

Taylor came from an era before WR’s began regularly taking the ‘look at me everybody’ hot dog tack, from teammate Elmo Wright to Billy ‘White Shoes’ Johnson, to the modern day TO’s. Great as he was, another Taylor – Charlie – I never had much respect for because he had a habit of ‘posing’ in the endzone after a td catch, and he like Otis came along in the 1960’s, NFL.

Otis Taylor finished his career with 410 catches for 7306 yards 57 touch downs and an 17.8 average yards per catch, resume. Officially, Otis is listed as having played 11 years; more correctly he played 10 years & 3 plays of 1 game he (was injured the first game of 1975 and missed the season, never to play again. Sob story? Hardly. Otis Taylor’s 17.8 yards per catch rank just behind guys named Warfield, Alworth, Maynard, Lofton & Hirsch. Taylor was a game breaker – a thoroughbred – a ‘Champion among Champions’ as one announcer gushed.

Otis played on a team that favored the run moreso the pass, and even when it did pass employed short to intermediate range throws rather than ‘the bomb’ (though Taylor did more than once catch some way down the field & did turn many a short toss into a spectacular long gainer, as in Superbowl IV.)

So why isn’t Otis in the NFL Hall of Fame? A lack of comparable stats for the most, others his era. Certainly less than the ‘inflated’ modern day numbers which have in essence relegated any semblance statistical relevance moot.

That Otis Taylor does have better ‘stats’ than one well-known Hall of Famer (WR Lynn Swann) is of note. Is it because the Steelers had better ‘teams’ and won more Championships than the Chiefs? If anything one might argue Otis had no one to take pressure off him aft the retirement Chris Burford post ’67.

Swann had so many other Hall of Fame teammates that it could be argued either way: he had less opportunity because there were so many other team (player) options offense, Bradsahw, Stallworth, Harris, Webster et al.

Conversely, an Otis Taylor proponent could argue he had no one to take the pressure off him, and so he often received undue attention by way of double coverage, even triple at times. Taylor had already been retired three-years by the time the NFL instituted the 5-yard bump & run rule change 1978; Swann played more than half his career under the new rule.

As I’ve said before speaking as a fan, the only Hall of Fame that matters to me is the one resides in my heart & memory, but to a ‘Hall of Fame caliber player’ like Otis Taylor, enshrinement would be justice delayed but ultimately delivered.

That’s the thing – while I would have no problem with an Otis Taylor being in the Hall of Fame, I wouldn’t be indignant were he not enshrined because I can see things in the light of others opinions that his stats were ‘not good enough’ – but only if said were consistent across the board reference all nominees, which of course it is not/never has been, appears.

Agreed as to the Chiefs (among other teams players & coaches) and that’s my point – no ‘consistency’ the HOF selection process; unless my own bias blinds me, ‘case by case basis’ appears code for ‘subjective bias’. The ‘voters’ offer no rating or point system for review to my knowledge; apparently, it is no more than ‘one man’s opinion’, times X.

Some cases you can point to ‘team’ success an enshrinement, players moreso but some coaches too. Yet, an number of inductees while successful finished sans winning a Superbowl or a pre-Super Championship, yet were enshrined.

I’ve also never understood or agreed with only allowing X number of enshrinees per year – what’s the rationale? If you were ‘great’, you deserve to be enshrined today, not tomorrow due some artificial barrier. Get the deserving players and coaches in ‘now’ while they can still enjoy the honor & not aft they have passed away.

OK, my soap box is cracking under the weight & strain my angst [pause for breath ]

~

A few examples of coaches who are in the HOF, their induction date of interest as well some of them whose merit I question, with all due respect.

Is it ‘success’ in general being rewarded, reward despite no ‘ultimate success’, or just success compared other coaches, their peers – some who won and some who did not, Superbowl(s) or pre-Super Championship?

Weeb Ewbank was a career .500 coach in essence, but as Coach of three-Championship teams was deemed good enough. OK, no argument here.
.502 winning %

Marv Levy was 0-4 in Superbowl appearances & oversaw 7 losing seasons… he was enshrined in 2001; what are they extolling, his persistence 18 years?

George Allen had a marvelous winning % but never won Superbowl nor a pre-Super Championship. He was inducted 2002… ‘gray area’ comes to mind.
.712 winning %

Bud Grant is another example: he also had a fine winning % & coached in a number of Superbowls – yet won 0 in 18 years. You’re in Bud – class of ’94.
.620 winning %

Hank Stram won 3 AFL Championships, was 1-1 in Superbowl’s & beat Grant in one of those, yet had to wait until 2003 to be enshrined; what the… ?
.571 winning %

‘If’ the HOF is one based upon greatness 9whatever that means?), then it should and must be an consistent measure, and not one subject to ‘caprice’, seemingly. You’re either great or you’re not, good enough or no, across the board and down the line.

Though I’m an old Chiefs fan, but would not vote Marty Schottenheimer into the Hall of Fame as a Coach, future. To me, a Coach any moreso than a player must have ‘won’ a Championship at minimum & not merely gotten his team there. Great out the gate (regular season) & fade down the line (home stretch) does not constitute HOF merit in my book, to each voter their own. To me, a Schottenheimer is the epitome of an also-ran, tho he was great up to a point.
.613 winning %

‘Tough crowd, tough crowd’ as Rodney Dangerfield used to say, no grading on the curve for me.