"Why Isn't One of the NFL's Best Pass Defenders, not in the HoF?"

[Essex Johnson]

(07-01-2020, 06:59 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: The real answer?

It's because he played in a small market, and he never won a ring.  Had he played in NY, or had won a couple rings, even with the same exact stats, skill level, and play then he'd be a shoe-in.

Being in small market was definitely a much bigger issue back in the day.  Unless he was playing on Monday Night no one got to see him play. And how often were they putting small market teams on National TV back in the day? A.) Not as often as bigger markets.

There was no watching a game at 1, watching and an out-of-market game at 4 and then tuning into Sunday night football.  There was no Thursday night football.  There was no ESPN or highlight clips and talking heads dominating the airwaves. There was no internet.  You had 3(?) channels, radio and the newspaper.

Had he played a more stat driven position (QB, RB, WR) then maybe he could've overcomed this. But as a DB he's getting shafted.  Not enough people saw him, and there aren't clear benchmarks to say, yeah this guy has HOF numbers.

It's a shame, because he clearly deserves being in.

I understand the idea of a small market but in the 70s especially with Paul Brown running the team.. the Bengals got a good amount of press plus they won alot in the 70s so I don;t think it was that simple... St. Louis is not that much bigger than Cincy and they were not very good in 70s , never went to a Super Bowl and they have Roger Wehrli which was Riley's time.. I think also Parrish and Riley were both very good but that took away from each other.  I do agree the 70s teams of Pitt, Oakland, Dallas, Washington, Miami, Minn. overshadowed many teams not just Cincy though... Lets just hope with the articles being written it puts heat on the Senior Selection to honor Anderson and Riley

[jfkbengals]

(07-06-2020, 12:58 AM)Essex Johnson Wrote: I understand the idea of a small market but in the 70s especially with Paul Brown running the team.. the Bengals got a good amount of press plus they won alot in the 70s so I don;t think it was that simple... St. Louis is not that much bigger than Cincy and they were not very good in 70s , never went to a Super Bowl and they have Roger Wehrli which was Riley's time.. I think also Parrish and Riley were both very good but that took away from each other.  I do agree the 70s teams of Pitt, Oakland, Dallas, Washington, Miami, Minn. overshadowed many teams not just Cincy though... Lets just hope with the articles being written it puts heat on the Senior Selection to honor Anderson and Riley

I have a hunch Anderson might go in this next vote, in an effort to prevent the same posthumous entrance that Stabler had and Riley should have...

[Sled21]

The whole "Riley isn't deserving, even with his accomplishments, because he played opposite of Parrish" is complete BS without Parrish being in the Hall. If Parrish was so good they had to throw at a guy like Riley (He was), then he should be in, correct?
Bengals who should have already been in the Hall.....
Ken Riley
Ken Anderson
Lamar Parrish
Willie Anderson
James Brooks
Tim Krumrie

[fredtoast]

(07-06-2020, 12:32 PM)Sled21 Wrote: The whole "Riley isn't deserving, even with his accomplishments, because he played opposite of Parrish" is complete BS without Parrish being in the Hall. If Parrish was so good they had to throw at a guy like Riley (He was), then he should be in, correct?

Parrish got blackballed because of drug problems after he retired.

Parrish held the career return td record for almost 20 years until Deion Sanders passed him in the 90's.  It was such a big secret that many Bengal fans didn't even know this even back then.

Parrish also has the best single season punt return average since the AFL/NFL merger (18.8 in '74).

ProFootballReference's 1st team CBs for the All-1970's team were Mel Blount and Lemar Parrish. 

But when was the last time you heard any NFL analyst even mention Parrish's name as a great player from the past?

[J24]

I remember there was a top 10 CB tandem countdown on NFL Network and Parrish+ Risky were not on it. That Pissed me off!
Hell you could argue that the Bengals had one of the greatest secondaries of All time with Parrish, Riely, and Casanova at FS.

[Ravage]

(07-01-2020, 07:13 PM)Jason_NC Wrote: Actually I'd say the real reason for both Kens is they played at the same time and in the same division as one of the best teams in NFL history.  I'd be interested in how many guys from Oilers and Browns who had their prime years the 70s are in.

Houston 2 playoff appearances in the 1970's (78 & 79), 0 Championships:
Elvin Bethea 1968-1983
Robert Brazile 1975-1984
Earl Campbell 1978-1984
Curley Culp 1974-1980

Cleveland 2 playoff appearances in the 1970's (71 & 72), 0 Championships:
Leroy Kelly 1964-1973
Ozzie Newsome 1978-1990
*Paul Warfield 1964-1969, 1976-1977

Cincinnati 3 playoff appearances in the 1970's (70, 73 & 75) 0 Championships:
*Crickets*


* - I include Warfield as a Browns HOF'er but not for the 1970's since almost all his work in the 70's was with the Dolphins. Same could be said of Newsome since he only played two years in the decade, but Campbell counts and he's a 70's HOF'er to be sure.

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

(07-01-2020, 07:14 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Averaging 4+ INTs over a 15 year career is pretty damn benchmark and impressive, no matter what era or market he played in.  Dude's been getting hosed, as far as my opinion goes..

Agreed, don't care that Riley played on a small market team. Deserves it anyways with those numbers.

[PAjwPhilly]

(07-02-2020, 10:58 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: That was the point of the voter I was discussing in post #5, "Don't throw at Parrish, throw at Riley!"

Looking at their numbers from 1970 to 1977...

Ken Riley totaled 36 INTs for 302 yards and 2 TD returns. That's an 8.38 yard average.
Lemar Parrish 25 INTs for 354 yards and 4 TD returns.  That's a 14.16 yard average.

The numbers show that from 1970-1972 Lemar Parrish had a +5 INT lead and was dominating in return yards per. Both players were pretty even and lackluster in 1973. And then from 1974-1977 it was the Ken Riley show.... he put up 22 INTs and lead Parrish by 11 INTs in the end and almost caught up in return yards.

From a purely statistical standpoint Parrish was probably pretty intimidating in 1970-72. But Riley even topped those numbers while Parrish fell off in 1974-77.

Wouldn't it be better to throw at the guy with 25 INTs versus 36?

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/ParrLe00.htm
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RileKe20.htm#all_all_pro


In my opinion they should both be in there with Ken Anderson. Parrish bounced back in Washington. I do not understand how bad the drugs were with Parrish, there isn't a ton of coverage on it. A small cocaine bust? Is that really any worse than say a man like Ray Lewis? This is another clear example of how much the NFL controls the narrative.

[fredtoast]

(07-09-2020, 12:22 PM)Ravage Wrote: Houston 2 playoff appearances in the 1970's (78 & 79), 0 Championships:
Elvin Bethea 1968-1983
Robert Brazile 1975-1984
Earl Campbell 1978-1984
Curley Culp 1974-1980

Cleveland 2 playoff appearances in the 1970's (71 & 72), 0 Championships:
Leroy Kelly 1964-1973
Ozzie Newsome 1978-1990
*Paul Warfield 1964-1969, 1976-1977

Cincinnati 3 playoff appearances in the 1970's (70, 73 & 75) 0 Championships:
*Crickets*


* - I include Warfield as a Browns HOF'er but not for the 1970's since almost all his work in the 70's was with the Dolphins. Same could be said of Newsome since he only played two years in the decade, but Campbell counts and he's a 70's HOF'er to be sure.

Rep.

[jfkbengals]

(07-10-2020, 03:56 AM)PAjwPhilly Wrote: Looking at their numbers from 1970 to 1977...

Ken Riley totaled 36 INTs for 302 yards and 2 TD returns. That's an 8.38 yard average.
Lemar Parrish 25 INTs for 354 yards and 4 TD returns.  That's a 14.16 yard average.

The numbers show that from 1970-1972 Lemar Parrish had a +5 INT lead and was dominating in return yards per. Both players were pretty even and lackluster in 1973. And then from 1974-1977 it was the Ken Riley show.... he put up 22 INTs and lead Parrish by 11 INTs in the end and almost caught up in return yards.

From a purely statistical standpoint Parrish was probably pretty intimidating in 1970-72. But Riley even topped those numbers while Parrish fell off in 1974-77.

Wouldn't it be better to throw at the guy with 25 INTs versus 36?

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/ParrLe00.htm
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RileKe20.htm#all_all_pro


In my opinion they should both be in there with Ken Anderson. Parrish bounced back in Washington. I do not understand how bad the drugs were with Parrish, there isn't a ton of coverage on it. A small cocaine bust? Is that really any worse than say a man like Ray Lewis? This is another clear example of how much the NFL controls the narrative.

No doubt...