More "changing the game"

[JohnTurney]

There is a good case for Otis Taylor on its own and people
can have differing opinions just like on all borderline
guys - maybe he deserved more notice

But he was a big receiver but not THAT
much bigger than Lionel Taylor or Art Powell
Homer Jones maybe a couple of others

But changing the game? If so, I missed that.
In some ways receivers got smaller in 1970s and 1980s
even smurf like--but always some bigger guys, too
Monk, Clark, etc . . . but the 210+ guys not a lot of them
really until much later, then they became commonplace



https://talkoffametwo.com/hof-interview ... aylor-hall

“Otis Taylor is Exhibit A in the ‘eye test,’ ” MacCambridge answered. “We take a look at modern wide receivers and what we want. We want (them) tall, strong elusive. He was that in the mid ‘60s.

“I think the case for Otis being in the Hall of Fame starts with: He changed the game. He was the future of what that position would look like before almost anybody else got there. And he marshaled a set of skills that wasn’t seen.

“That wasn’t stuff that Raymond Berry was doing. There were obviously great receivers before the ‘60s, but Otis was … as people like to say … ‘one of one.’ “

[rhickok1109]

Otis Taylor was 6-3, 215 pounds. Boyd Dowler was 6-5, 225 pounds.

[Bryan]

Yes, not buying the changing the game stuff. The NFL in general tended to have bigger WRs than the AFL in the mid-60's. You had guys like Boyd Dowler, Dave Parks (for a short time) and Gary Collins. Even guys like Charley Taylor and Homer Jones were about the same size as Otis Taylor. Maybe Taylor stood out more relative to the other WRs in his league; but even then, as you mentioned, Art Powell was more of the 'change the game' guy that preceded Taylor by several years.

Taylor was a very good WR. He was more athletic than guys like Dowler & Collins, but he didn't have great hands. I think of Taylor as more of a HOVG WR. Gary Garrison put up similar numbers and was more consistent. Otis Taylor didn't have enough 'big years' IMO to be a HOF WR. He would get nicked up due to his physical style of play. If he had the durability of a Terrell Owens, I think Taylor would have had a HOF career.

[rhickok1109]

Yes, not buying the changing the game stuff. The NFL in general tended to have bigger WRs than the AFL in the mid-60's. You had guys like Boyd Dowler, Dave Parks (for a short time) and Gary Collins. Even guys like Charley Taylor and Homer Jones were about the same size as Otis Taylor. Maybe Taylor stood out more relative to the other WRs in his league; but even then, as you mentioned, Art Powell was more of the 'change the game' guy that preceded Taylor by several years.

Taylor was a very good WR. He was more athletic than guys like Dowler & Collins, but he didn't have great hands. I think of Taylor as more of a HOVG WR. Gary Garrison put up similar numbers and was more consistent. Otis Taylor didn't have enough 'big years' IMO to be a HOF WR. He would get nicked up due to his physical style of play. If he had the durability of a Terrell Owens, I think Taylor would have had a HOF career.

More athletic than Dowler? I doubt it. Dowler was a college QB who also played defense and intercepted 5 passes as a senior. He also ran the 120-yard high hurdles.

[Jay Z]

If O. Taylor changed the game then what did Paul Warfield do? Warfield was an exact contemporary, just clearly better, so he must have done something. Oh yeah, he's already in the HOF and consequently doesn't have fans calling for his election.

Gene Washington the 49er was the same as Otis Taylor. Couple big years for good teams, but too much falloff. Taylor had a couple of big catches during the 1969 playoff run. But too much falloff, hurt too much, not long enough career. Others like Collins had big playoff moments too. Too many players at that level that are not in.

[Cali_Eagle]

I think Gary Collins ought to be in the PFHOF. His ratio of catches to TD receptions is amazing (to me anyway) 331 receptions and 70 TDs. Playoffs - 19 receptions and 5 TDs. That seems good enough to me, especially since he played in an era where you could be regarded as a great receiver with a lot less catches than in todays game. I see he is in the HOVG and that's a good thing. I noticed Lionel Taylor isn't in the HOVG and I was wondering why that is. I would think he'd be in there as Charlie Hennigan is (same era, same league, high numbers of receptions.) But Taylor played on the worst team in the AFL year in and year out.

[Brian wolf]

Unlike Dowler, Collins and Charley Taylor, Otis Taylor had no complimentary receivers after Burford retired in 1968. He was the main weapon for a run dominant team, who had great postseasons to win two AFL Championships in 66, 69 and the SB. I feel he is worthy of the HOF.

[Bryan]

More athletic than Dowler? I doubt it. Dowler was a college QB who also played defense and intercepted 5 passes as a senior. He also ran the 120-yard high hurdles.

Maybe I am nit-picking better athlete. I am only looking at it from NFL lens. Taylor made some great plays that I don't think Dowler could have made. Just compare their long TDs in SB II and SB IV....have you ever seen Dowler make a similar play to Taylor's SB IV play?

And while I don't really think Taylor should be in the HOF, I do agree with Brian Wolf that Taylor was the best player on that KC offense. Not sure if the same can be said of Dowler and Collins. But both of those guys were underrated as well.

[JohnH19]

More athletic than Dowler? I doubt it. Dowler was a college QB who also played defense and intercepted 5 passes as a senior. He also ran the 120-yard high hurdles.

Maybe I am nit-picking better athlete. I am only looking at it from NFL lens. Taylor made some great plays that I don't think Dowler could have made. Just compare their long TDs in SB II and SB IV....have you ever seen Dowler make a similar play to Taylor's SB IV play?

And while I don't really think Taylor should be in the HOF, I do agree with Brian Wolf that Taylor was the best player on that KC offense. Not sure if the same can be said of Dowler and Collins. But both of those guys were underrated as well.

Taylor quite possibly was the best player on that KC offence (certainly he was if we’re not including Dawson, Budde and Tyrer) but he didn’t have the same quality of ball handlers around him as Dowler and Collins. It’s not an apples to apples comparison.