lets_go_bills Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Steve Tasker belongs in the HOF. It is a horrible injustice that he isn't. He made so many game-changing plays, plays that directly affected the outcomes of games. Unfortunately there are too many voters who don't acknowledge special teams as HOF worthy. They are wrong and never saw Steve play. Sadly, I don't think he will ever get in. But he absolutely belongs. He absolutely should be enshrined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsWatch Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 What rules were changed regarding Tasker? One of the rules that was changed made was that players could not go out of bounds on kicks and make plays. Tasker was double teamed frequently and triple teamed on occasion so he figured out how to get around the blocks and still make the tackle or down the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 One of the rules that was changed made was that players could not go out of bounds on kicks and make plays. Tasker was double teamed frequently and triple teamed on occasion so he figured out how to get around the blocks and still make the tackle or down the ball. I don't think a minor rule change like that is really a HOF credential. R.C. Owens isn't in the HOF even though you can't block a FG from under the goal post anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 I don't think a minor rule change like that is really a HOF credential. R.C. Owens isn't in the HOF even though you can't block a FG from under the goal post anymore. You really think that's the same thing....? I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIE HARD 1967 Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 I think they will both get there , I really don't care who is first. Nice post..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 You really think that's the same thing....? I don't. Same thing? No. But another example of a relatively minor rule change? Yes. As Spiderweb points out, those Bills teams had outstanding players on ST; Tasker certainly did not do it alone and may not have even been the best ST guy on the team. I know he inspired a lot of fans, but induction in the HOF, and before Andre Reed??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Andre was a great reciever most certainly and I hope gets in someday I'm more upset that Tasker doesn't come close to getting in. Sure, his "position" was wide reciever and his stats as WR don't compare but his role on the team was a special teamer but he doesn't get the consideration largely due to the lack of stats although he is widely considered the best ever special teamer. The HOF is not all about stats. If that were the case, you'd never have an offensive lineman in Canton. Or have to explain why it took Art Monk so long to get in. IMO, making the cut has more to do with the electors (ie, media's) perception of the impact the player had on winning games for their team, pure and simple. Tasker may well be the best ST gunner in NFL history. But I'm sure most would agree (particularly outsiders) that his impact on the W-L record trails well behind that of Kelly, Thurmal and Bruce, let alone 'Dre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Both Taker and Reed belong in the HOF. I think Reed belongs there, first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts