Ken Riley and Charles Woodson

[t3r3e3]

(12-22-2015, 02:50 AM)MrRager Wrote: I

I was just saying what I found on PFR. I'm not saying Riley should or shouldn't be in, but trying to explain why Woodson is a lock even though they have the same INTs. The fact they didn't track these stats make it so much harder for a player at that position to get in. Woodson has the stats 100%. 

For all of those harping about Riley, why does he only have on 1st team All-Pro? That seems to be the next thing to look at if stats don't explain much. Woodson has three and a DPOY. DPOYs are HUGE to getting in. 

I'll agree that Ken should be in because we actually have a plethora of stats that prove that and isn't not like he did zilch in the playoffs

All a part of being a Bengals star in the 70's.  Pre-cable and Internet shut out guys in small markets, especially when another team in the division was a dynasty.  That being said, Riley's (and Anderson's) stats warrant a HoF nod, or at least a strong consideration.  For that matter, Isaac Curtis put up far better stats than Lynn Swann, but Swann is a HoF recipient largely off some big game performances and the Super Bowl heroics.  Swann's receiving stats are flat weak for a HoF recipient, but he played for a visible team that won a bunch of titles.

And I agree that Woodson is a no doubt 1st ballot HoF guy. It's just laughable that Riley never gets any hint of consideration from the veterans committee, and flat insulting that Anderson doesn't.