Steve Tasker among "10 best players not in Canton"

[BillsWatch]

No debating Tasker's contributions - but when it comes to ST HOF consideration, Ray Guy comes first:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Guy

 

He was a kicker only. Great player but not in same category IMO.

[Wacka]

Wasn't Tasker the MVP of one of the All-Star games?

[KOKBILLS]

Wasn't Tasker the MVP of one of the All-Star games?

 

Yes...

[krazykat]

Definitely deserved but they would be starting a whole new category for him. Very difficult nut to crack for him.

Not really, it would have to be special teams. The other stuff on offense is just gravy. But the problem is that he excelled in coverages, not returns making his value less high profile. So it's difficult to say look at the stats. He's the only guy I know of that team's had to plan around on returns.

[Steely Dan]

I forget what the exact rule change was can anyone refresh my mamories memories.

[BillsWatch]

I forget what the exact rule change was can anyone refresh my mamories memories.

 

Tasker used to go out on sideline to avoid triple blocks and still make the tackle.

They changed rule to prevent him from doing that.

[MarkAF43]

Because you don't have to take a certain number of offensive players, defensive players and a certain number of special teamers. You go in as a player. My point is this- compare him to a hall of famer or great player and he comes up short.

 

And that shouldn't be taken as a slam against him- he was one of the highest character players I have seen, and he probably was the best ever at what he did.

 

 

But the question becomes as other people have posted, when does the HOF start recognizing the outstanding contributions made by ST players? The Hall always looks at Offense and Defense, but as someone else posted, if the game is really broken into 3 parts and they ST plays such a huge role in the outcome of the game, don't you think it's time to start honoring the best there were at that crucial piece of the game?

 

 

Personally, I think he belongs there, it will take some time, but eventually it will happen because his contributions to the game cannot be left unnoticed forever

[lets_go_bills]

It is a horrible injustice that Tasker is not in the Hall of Fame. He was amazing and made a lot of great plays.

 

I remember a while back about someone in the sports media saying a former Bills staffer gave him a video of ten plays that Tasker made that either dramatically changed or won games. ST is a part of the game too. An important one.

 

Also, Cris Carter put up insane numbers. How is he not in there?

[justnzane]

It is a horrible injustice that Tasker is not in the Hall of Fame. He was amazing and made a lot of great plays.

 

I remember a while back about someone in the sports media saying a former Bills staffer gave him a video of ten plays that Tasker made that either dramatically changed or won games. ST is a part of the game too. An important one.

Also, Cris Carter put up insane numbers. How is he not in there?

This year was his first of eligibilty

[lets_go_bills]

This year was his first of eligibilty

 

He retired in '02 and you must wait five years, so he was eligible in '07, no?

[justnzane]

He retired in '02 and you must wait five years, so he was eligible in '07, no?

oops i thought it was six. But even so, Carter was good, but definitely not a first ballot HOF'er. Out of his era, Rice, Reed, and Sterling Sharpe were definitely better players than him, and Irvin is already in from his era.

[lets_go_bills]

oops i thought it was six. But even so, Carter was good, but definitely not a first ballot HOF'er. Out of his era, Rice, Reed, and Sterling Sharpe were definitely better players than him, and Irvin is already in from his era.

 

Rice is the greatest for sure. Sharpe was amazing, but his career got cut short by injury. Reed belongs in the Hall too.

 

But Carter is second all-time in receptions and fifth all-time in receiving yards. I felt he deserves first-ballot consideration, but sometimes worthy guys get squeezed out because Canton only takes seven at a time.

[krazykat]

It is a horrible injustice that Tasker is not in the Hall of Fame. He was amazing and made a lot of great plays.

Agreed!

[Bill from NYC]

Steve Tasker - Yes

Ken Anderson - No

Cris Carter - Yes

Bob Hayes - Yes

Alex Karras - Yes

Jerry Kramer - Yes

Jim Marshall - Yes

Ken Stabler - No

Derrick Thomas - Yes

Ricky Watters -

 

Tasker belongs in the HOF.

 

Ken, I must disagree wrt Ken Anderson. Imo, the guy was great.

[Lori]

He retired in '02 and you must wait five years, so he was eligible in '07, no?

No, because the selection committee actually starts the voting process the fall before the class is enshrined. Because Carter retired after the 2002 season, he was not eligible for the Class of 2007 preliminary list which was released on Oct. 27, 2006. Likewise, Bruce Smith retired after the 2003 season, and he isn't eligible until the Class of 2009.

 

You also mentioned that Carter was possibly left out of this year's class "because Canton only takes seven at a time." This year, they only took six ... which means that no one else, including Carter, received the minimum 80 percent vote necessary for enshrinement.

 

There have been only four modern-era wide receivers enshrined on the first ballot: Raymond Berry (1973), Lance Alworth (1978), Paul Warfield (1983), and Steve Largent (1995). Carter is not in their class, because numbers alone do not make a Hall of Fame career.

[justnzane]

Rice is the greatest for sure. Sharpe was amazing, but his career got cut short by injury. Reed belongs in the Hall too.

 

But Carter is second all-time in receptions and fifth all-time in receiving yards. I felt he deserves first-ballot consideration, but sometimes worthy guys get squeezed out because Canton only takes seven at a time.

I would still say that Sharpe belongs in before Carter, as he was the premier WR in that division until his neck injury. You could also argue for a number of years that Herman Moore was better than Carter, thus making him #3 in his own division. Carter's numbers are a tad inflated from being in a pass happy system at minnesota. By your numbers argument, you would be saying that Tim Brown also belongs in, when he wasn't that premier receiver in his conference either.

[Adam]

Sterling sharpe has no chance of getting in the hall of fame- His career just was too short. Same for Terrell Davis

[KRC]

Sterling sharpe has no chance of getting in the hall of fame- His career just was too short. Same for Terrell Davis

 

If you elect Davis, you have to let in Spec Sanders. Sanders was far better than Davis. I do not think that the selection committee wants to open that can of worms, by letting in people with shorter careers.

[lets_go_bills]

No, because the selection committee actually starts the voting process the fall before the class is enshrined. Because Carter retired after the 2002 season, he was not eligible for the Class of 2007 preliminary list which was released on Oct. 27, 2006. Likewise, Bruce Smith retired after the 2003 season, and he isn't eligible until the Class of 2009.

 

You also mentioned that Carter was possibly left out of this year's class "because Canton only takes seven at a time." This year, they only took six ... which means that no one else, including Carter, received the minimum 80 percent vote necessary for enshrinement.

 

There have been only four modern-era wide receivers enshrined on the first ballot: Raymond Berry (1973), Lance Alworth (1978), Paul Warfield (1983), and Steve Largent (1995). Carter is not in their class, because numbers alone do not make a Hall of Fame career.

 

Thanks for clearing that up, I wasn't totally sure on the HoF rules.

 

I still think Carter was great and worthy of HoF enshrinement. You're right when you say numbers aren't everything, but he put up big numbers and was a main cog in a very dominant offence that hung a lot of points on teams. His eight straight seasons of 1000+ receiving yards and 86+ receptions shows consistency, and lead to eight straight pro bowls. He also had five straight seasons of double-digit TDs.

 

I know he had his share of off-the-field problems (alcohol and cocaine), but he recommitted himself, got clean, and turned his life around. That should be recognized too.

 

The fact that he was not inducted in the class of '08 comes as a surprise, but he will eventually get in.

 

It seems we find ourselves in the same debate as HoF voters and other sports media: Who is worthy of enshrinement, and who isn't.

[lets_go_bills]

I would still say that Sharpe belongs in before Carter, as he was the premier WR in that division until his neck injury. You could also argue for a number of years that Herman Moore was better than Carter, thus making him #3 in his own division. Carter's numbers are a tad inflated from being in a pass happy system at minnesota. By your numbers argument, you would be saying that Tim Brown also belongs in, when he wasn't that premier receiver in his conference either.

 

Sharpe only played six season. They were great seasons, but still only six. He also wasn't on their SB winning team, although he would have been. I feel really bad saying this because he was an amzing player and is a great person too, but I just don't think he is worthy of enshrinement.

 

The worst part is, had he not sufferred the injury, he would probably be the greatest WR of all-time, maybe second only to Rice. Sharpe was so good and talented. Him and Favre would have been the best tandem ever too. It sucks talking about "what could've been."