Heavy run of Hall of Fame questions. First one's the best, and its e-mailer,
Why indeed? I certainly thought he was a great player, one of the most feared long ball threats in history. I got out my book and did a little research on Stanley. For the first six years of his career in New England he averaged 22.6 yards per reception. In every one of those six, the number was at 20.9 or better. No receiver since then has come close.
To put it in perspective,
Are you starting to get the picture on Stanley Morgan? So with all those 120-something names we had to wade through, all those jamokes, why wasn't Morgan there? The answer is something that always sets my teeth on edge when I hear it so many times during the enshrinement meetings. "Slipped through the cracks."
I'm just as guilty as the others, dozing in my gondola by the Grand Canal. He won't slip through the cracks next year, I promise. His name will be on the list.
Here's an interesting hypothetical situation posed by
No. They'd draw a lot of hearts and flounders columns, and if enough of us pushed hard enough, a kind of asterisk notation, or little display with plaque, in Canton. Something to be enshrined, but on a different pedestal. You realize, of course, the weakness of your argument. There's no such thing as a record for all eternity. It would be impossible to argue it. Could be broken the next year.
In his prime, while it lasted, he was very accurate. Then he became consistently inaccurate. His teammates wondered why. That's as far as I'll take this one. A few years ago, the person presenting him at the enshrinement meeting mentioned how he had "always been cooperative with the media." My hand shot up as if it were on a spring, and I reminded this ninny about how the Snake invited
Isn't it, Linda? Honey, isn't it? OK, ha ha, my head has been leveled. Very funny. Where were we?
More on the Patriots, this time in relation to the Colts. If all the Colts' wounded return to action for the next go round, this time up in Foxboro, asks
The other guys? Yeah, although
Another chap with some very nice things to say,
That night I wrote him a letter, care of the club. I said that the two greatest games I'd ever seen in the Meadows were
No, I never got a reply to my letter. Sometimes they don't get through. As far as super players becoming media stars, I don't pay much attention. I don't take any media people seriously unless there's some evidence that they've done some work. Which eliminates about 99 percent of those talk show yaks.
Beaulieu Vineyards 1974 Private Reserve Cabernet. Cost me $12 a bottle, figuring the case discount.
2) Do we have to re-evaluate
Yes. All of a sudden it's gotten better.
3) "How many mulligans does a GM get on hiring the wrong coach until he hits the right one?"
Something that looks like ScrivinKC of KC (what kind of name is that?) begins his plea for help this way, and it melted the hearts of
What drives him crackers is end zone yardage being added to long runs, producing, for instance,
Well, as I read his plea for help, it dawned on me that, hey, 100-plus yardage runs seemed new to me, too. Wouldn't it be just like the Elias Sports Bureau to sneak in something like that in the dead of night, to juice up the records. Well, I couldn't call Elias, because they don't talk to me, imagine! So I started looking back through old NFL record manuals to see when this phenomenon first occurred. Guess what? It was always around. Even back in the 1940's there were 105 and 106-yard runs listed. To qualify, though, they have to come on the runback of a kickoff or interception or field goal attempt. A punt into the end zone, for instance, stops the action.
And thanks for your sentiments, uh, Scrivin, uh, Scriv ... I'm not sure what I'm supposed to call you. If I were Mike Silver I'd say, "Thanks, dude."