Simms, Bavaro Hall of Fame worthy?
by Ed Valentine on May 26, 2008 7:00 AM EDT
in New York Giants News
Email
PrintSports Illustrated's Dr. Z, Paul Zimmerman, is out with a look through the Preliminary List of Hall of Fame candidates. With the help of retired Packers GM Ron Wolf, it's an interesting read.
There are two Giants who are on the list -- Phil Simms and Mark Bavaro. Wolf's take? No shot for Simms. Wolf thinks, though, that Bavaro has the best shot of any of the tight ends on a list that includes Ben Coates and Todd Christenson.
I love both of these guys, of course. Quite honestly, though, I don't believe either one of them belongs in the Hall of Fame.
Let's look at the Hall of Fame candidacies of both players.
Phil Simms
I'm too young to remember YA Tittle and Charlie Conerly, so when I think of an all-time great Giants quarterback, Simms is the man. Simms, of course, had the legendary 22-of-25 performance in Super Bowl XXI. He was a quality quarterback, a tough guy, a great leader and a very good quarterback. But great? Not quite.
I agree with Wolf, who categorized Simms, Boomer Esiason, Jim Plunkett, Ken Stabler and Ken Anderson -- all on the preliminary list -- this way.
"Good players, all of them good enough to win, but Hall of Famers? I don't think so."
In an era with Joe Montana and Dan Marino, Simms was an effective, quality quarterback. But never the best.
One stat jumped out at me when I looked at Simms' numbers, and it's one Eli bashers should take note of. Only once in his career, his final season at the age of 39, did Simms complete at least 60 percent of his passes.
Again, good, but not great. A historic Giant -- but not a historic, Hall of Fame worthy NFL quarterback.
Mark Bavaro
I can still picture No. 89 barreling down the middle of the field, catching a pass from Simms and dragging defenders with him for extra yardage.
Bavaro was a raging bull -- Jeremy Shockey before Shockey, except without the histrionics. In fact, usually without ever uttering a word to the media.
At his best, I would say Bavaro -- who was also a brutal blocker -- might well have been the best tight end I have ever watched.
His best, unfortunately, came and went in the blink of an eye.
In 1986, his second season in the league, Bavaro caught 66 passes for 1001 yards -- incredible numbers for a tight end at the time. He was named All Pro for the first time.
That was his only truly great season, though. He caught 55 balls in 1987 and 53 in 1988, but knee injuries took their toll and he was never truly a force again after that.
Bavaro played six seasons with the Giants, then finished up with Cleveland and Philadelphia.
He ended his 9-year career with 351 catches, 20 less than Shockey has in his 6-year career right now.
I would love to say Bavaro belongs in the Hall, but I can't.
Again, a historic Giant who isn't quite a historic NFL player.
42 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
In my estimate, right on both counts, Ed.
I didn’t know Phil had been nominated. I’m glad for his sake that he was. As for Bavaro, another one of too many great players with careers cut short or marred by knee injuries. The Giants have had their share of such (eg., Kyle Rote, Tucker Fredrickson, Homer Jones, etc.)
correct me if I'm wrong
I believe Bavaro was used primarily as a blocker, and STILL put up those numbers. There was just something about Bavaro I loved as a kid
Blocker
Not in the beginning. I think that as his knees became progressively worse he became less and less of a force in the passing game, and his blocking became his primary contribution. The guy was as good as any tight end I can remember blocking on the edge, bad knees and all.
by Ed Valentine on May 26, 2008 4:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Simms
What’s the most important stat for a QB?
Wins
Phil Simms was a winner.. He never was able to throw the ball to Jerry Rice or Andre Reed or Mark Clayton, even Irving Fryar.. I’m not sure Simms ever had a pro bowl receiver on his roster, Marino and Montana Each had several.. The Giants were a running team and Phil made the completions he needed to make to win… look at Terry Bradshaw’s stats.. Simms made his mark in the most important way, by getting the W
Getting the wins
hmm. It would be interesting to see QB stats on wins. Maybe Terrabyte can tell us.
by george cronin on May 26, 2008 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions
pretty sure
Montana’s got Simms beat in that category too.
I love Simms, he was my favorite player as a kid, and personally I regard him a bit higher than Boomer or Ken Anderson, but I don’t think he’s QUITE at the level of Hall of Famer. I’m not an Eli-lover by any stretch, but he definitely has a legit chance to pass Simms as the best post-merger QB of the Giants if he keeps up his current pace, because the offense rests much more on his shoulder than it ever did on Simms (except in Super Bowl XXI)
I've got to disagree on Simms
1. A very good quarterback playing in a system that did not feature the quarterback (i.e., a defense-oriented team that favored the run over th pass).
2. ”... the legendary 22-of-25 performance in Super Bowl XXI.”
3. A long productive career.
Was Simms better than Jim Kelly, four-time SB loser? Or Dan Marino who got there once but lost. Or Warren Moon? I think so.
Better than Marino?
Sorry, but I think you’ve been smoking the wrong stuff. He’s got the ring, but he wasn’t Marino.
by Ed Valentine on May 26, 2008 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Warren Moon was a system quarterback… Run and Shoot.. If you’re an above average college QB you could put up good numbers in the run and shoot
by Hoyadestroya85 on May 26, 2008 5:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Good numbers?
Possibly. Sensational numbers? I don’t think so.
by george cronin on May 26, 2008 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions
If simms threw the ball 40 times a game, every game in that offense, with those receivers he could have put up those types of numbers,
by Hoyadestroya85 on May 27, 2008 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions
It's not like you, Terrabyte, to not back up your
statements with stats. Better than Kelly or Marino?
by george cronin on May 26, 2008 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions
Ah, it's Memorial Day
It’s a day for kickin’ back, relaxing, drinking a beer or two and maybe doing some gardening. Not a day for crunching numbers. Give him a pass, but just this once. LOL!!!
by Ed Valentine on May 26, 2008 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions
I just read Dr. Z's article
Wow! Ken Anderson and Joe Klecko, two guys I’ve always felt never got the respect they deserve. And Otto Schnellbacher, the CB that Didn’t make the BBV team. Biggest wow of all? Spec Sanders, absolutely the best offensive football player I ever saw. I mentioned him a while back in BBV. Four year career, 3 in the AAFL, 1 in the NFL. He’ll never see the HOF.
by george cronin on May 26, 2008 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Super Bowl Records -- the only wins that count
Montana 4-0
Bradshaw 4-0
Aikman 3-0
Elway 3-2
Plunkett 2-0
Griese 2-1
Namath 1-0
Young 1-0
Simms 1-0
Stabler 1-0
Fouts 0-0
Moon 0-0
Anderson 0-1
Esiason 0-1
Marino 0-1
Kelly 0-4
I think what we have to keep in mind is that we saw Simms all the time, both the good and the bad. All these other guys had their bad times. Bradshaw was called “dumb.” Aikman was 0-11 in his first year. Elway couldn’t win until his last two years. Broadway Joe wore stockings. But all these guys epitomize greatness, despite their difficulties or maybe because of them.
Why is winning the Super Bowl so important? Because, as was mentioned by Hoyadestroya85, you can have great stats in a novel system, like the run and shoot, or have a great supporting cast, but still not win the big game. Kelly had the “no huddle” system, good receivers and a running game, but no SB wins. Fouts had great receivers, passed for 4,000 yards a couple of times and never got to the SB. Simms had awful receivers, except for Bavaro. His most potent weapon was the defense. So, it’s like an election, nobody cares who came in second. The Super Bowl is the only win that counts.
And yes, ETVal, I spent most of Saturday, Sunday, and Monday pulling weeds and planting seeds. I’m so sore I’m actually looking forward to going to work tomorrow.
A few more
Dilfer 1-0
B. Johnson 1-0
D. Williams 1-0
Rypien 1-0
McMahon 1-0
Hostetler 1-0
E. Manning 1-0
A lot of not so great QBs have won a Super Bowl, doesn’t make any of them Hall of Famers. The Super Bowl is a TEAM achievement, and shouldn’t be used as the be-all end-all when discussing QBs. If you want to say Montana and Elway and Favre are better than Marino b/c they’re up there with him statistically AND won SBs, that’s fine, but you can’t say Trent Dilfer was better than Marino b/c he won an SB and Marino didn’t. Same goes for Simms, although he was light years better than Dilfer.
2 thoughts on Simms
1) I don’t think in his entire career with the Giants, Simms ever had quality wide outs to throw to. I remember one guy, who starting making spectacular catches, and was being billed as a “white Lynn Swan” but but he got injured in his first season, and was never the same again.
2) The place of Simms in NFL history would have been very different if he hadn’t gotten injured on the way to the second super bowl run. He was having a very good year, but the Giants won it with Hos, who was OK – but certainly not great. Had Simms taken the team to a second super bowl – and won it, especially if it was a big win (those are all big ifs – nobody really knows what would have happened had Simms not gotten injured) he would have a stronger case for HOF
Simms was also a victim of the system that Parcells chose for the Giants. Don’t forget that Bill Walsh wanted Simms, but the Giants took him first. Montana was Walsh’s second choice. What would Simms have been like running a west coast offense?
Winning twice helps.
The eleven SB winning QBs in the HOF won 26 of the 33 SBs up to XXXIII. (Starr, Namath, Dawson, Unitas, Staubach, Griese, Bradshaw, Montana, Aikman, Young and Elway.) Favre won in XXXI. The average number of SB wins per QB is 2.4. Only three had one win (Namath, Dawson, Young.) Except for Plunkett with two wins, the other non-HOF QBs had one win (Stabler, Theisman,McMahon, Simms, Williams, Hostetler, Rypien.) Since XXXIV, such stalwarts as Warner, Dilfer and Brad Johnson have QB’d SB teams. If all that counts is winning SBs, it looks to me that Plunkett gets the first call. Of course, I always liked Theisman because he ran back punts and wore a one bar face mask.l
by george cronin on May 26, 2008 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Simms
I always thought it would have been interesting to see what Simms and Montana would have done had they traded teams & coaches. But, we will never know.
On the other side of Giants Stadium
The Jets drafted Kenny O’Brien 4 picks ahead of Dan Marino. My dad always argues that O’Brien would have been a hall of famer on the Dolphins and Marino would have been out of the league in a few years if he played behind the Jets O-Line. Always interesting to think about those kinds of things
Interesting, yes
But, umm, your dad is waaaay off on this one. Marino was a great, great QB. O’Brien was Mr. Happy Feet. Gun shy, easy to scare. He had to be protected perfectly to succeed. He was hardly a franchise player.
by Ed Valentine on May 26, 2008 10:47 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't remember
O’Brien too well, he was more or less coming to the end of the line when I started getting into football, but he did have a few good years. I think my dads point was along the lines of O’Briens negative attributes were exacerbated by the Jets pourous O-line, behind which nobody would have been successful. Today, Tom Brady is probably amongst the coolest QBs in the pocket, while David Carr has the same negative traits you described O’Brien as having, but I wonder if Brady had been drafted by the Texans and Carr by the Pats if that wouldn’t be switched around?
Interesting point, cj
Some guys come into the league w/o happy feet, but after years with a lousy team, develop them, Joe Ferguson, for example.
by george cronin on May 27, 2008 6:13 AM EDT up reply actions
Ed, Montana had something Simms didn't--an ability to
buy time in the pocket by scrambling, an invaluable attribute for a west coast offense QB. On the other hand, Montana had a rag for an arm while Simms had a pretty good one. Still, Montana over Simms is a no-brainer.
by george cronin on May 27, 2008 6:19 AM EDT up reply actions
I am not sure I agree with this
Montana’s real strength was that he could read the field really fast. He could check down to the fourth option when most QB’s were barely getting to option 2. He could move around in the pocket, but he was really known for scrambling – he was a pocket passer.
And oh, yeah he had Jerry Rice to throw to.
Good points.
As for scrambling ,I don’t want to resurrect the discussion with the Dallas troll re scrambling is or isn’t. suffice it to say that Montan was elusive and Simms wasn’t.
by george cronin on May 28, 2008 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions
OK
I’ll concede that Montana could be elusive and buy time – Yes, Young was the scrambler.
I think that Simms was tougher, and by the end of his career, I think he learned how to be elusive.
Bradshaw
If Bradshaw made the HOF as caretaker QB why can’t Simms. Was there something fundamentally wrong with Simms? A better question to ask is why he shouldn’t make it? Warner, I’d be on the fence about since he did have 3 amazing years and an MVP. Johnson I thought sucked even when he was playing well, system QB all the way. I think a real important point is that Simms did have terrible receivers. Would I be outraged he was left out? I say no. I think if Bradshaw’s in, Simms is not unworthy.
Simms is also one of the few QBs not to be emotionally ruined by Parcells, you ever see the NFL films stuff on him and QBs?
The difference
between the two is that Bradshaw QB’ed a historically dominant team, not a team that won just one Super Bowl w/him at the helm. The argument that Simms had little to work w/in terms of WRs is valid, though.
by Ed Valentine on May 27, 2008 10:57 AM EDT up reply actions
Unfortunately
HOF voters do look at team record, and a player who plays on a series of championship teams will always get the nod over a player of equal or greater ability who lacks the same pedigree. And I agree that Simms suffers because he played under the Parcells system, on a team assembled to win on the ground in those terrible Giants Stadium Decembers. Unfair, I know, but true.
another problem is that
Simms played in an era when teams were taking to the air more, while Bradshaw played in a mostly run-oriented era. If you compared their stats relative to their peers, Bradshaw comes out ahead.
I love Simms, he is one of my all-time favorite Giants, and as a Giants fan I hope he gets into the Hall, but I just don’t think he’s quite at that level, unfortunately.
Q, I think it's ot quite accurate to dismiss bradshaw as a
caretaker. He was more than that.
by george cronin on May 27, 2008 6:45 PM EDT up reply actions
any chance simms broadcasting help shim out?
hes a HOFer in my mind, but i also grew up with a poster of im on my wall for the first 10 years of my life that i can remember. but if simms remains on of the best in the booth for another 10-15 years, does he get some consideration then?
i mean, was madden really good enough to make it with just 1 SB win?
That's a thought
Maybe he gets in some day for ‘contributions to the game’ or something like that.
by Ed Valentine on May 27, 2008 2:10 PM EDT up reply actions
After Lombardi, Madden is the winningest coach in pro football history.
He’s one win shy of Lombardi and when he quit coaching said he didn’t want to break Lombardi’s record.
by george cronin on May 27, 2008 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Moon
I took a look at his stats inside and outside of “the system” and they’re not incredible, not even impressive as a matter of fact… I think they were quite mediocre… I think the hall gave warren moon the benefit of the doubt for being a pioneer
The stats you compared were those of the young Moon to the older Moon,
which is tendentious. As you point out, his stats in his seven years in Houston with the Run and Shoot would be better than his last years on teams with more orthodox offenses.
1.He was a professional QB for twenty years (The first five in the CFL.)
2.When he retired he held the record for most career TDs and most yardage gained.
by george cronin on May 27, 2008 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Do Damon Allen, and Doug Flutie Belong in the hall of fame if we’re counting CFL stats?
All i’m saying is that Simms could have done similar things in that offense..
by Hoyadestroya85 on May 28, 2008 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions
I wasn't counting AFL stats.
Simms could never have succeeded in a Run and Shoot. To counter that offense, defenses mount blitzes all the time. You need a highly mobile QB. Phil was a statue, like Maino, but without the quick release. I hate to get into ifs, would haves and should haves (how can we KNOW?) but I believe Flutie might have thrived in a Run and Shoot, an offense made to order for his skills.
by george cronin on May 28, 2008 4:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Bavaro....
That one play against the 49ers where he carried half the defense about twenty yards is one of the toughest performances ever by a Giant. Ed, can you post a video of that ?
by giant fan since 57 on May 27, 2008 6:46 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on Big Blue View
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Get Your Giants' Gear
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Jim Irsay says he would welcome Peyton Manning back … at the right price
- Roddy White isn’t thrilled with Roger Goodell’s $20 million salary
- Could concussions actually kill football?
- J.T. Thomas arrested for possessing some marijuana
- Bucs hire Butch Davis as ‘special assistant,’ have no issue with his double-dipping
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
