Sounds strange right? Read my logic.
Lynn Swann was voted into the HoF a few years ago. That means that the voters consider him one of the 17 best receivers of all time. He is not top 50 in any major category, in fact his 5462 receiving yards place him 149th on the all time list, his 51 TDs place him 75th, his 336 receptions place him at 225th. The common rationale is that Swann deserves to be in the HoF because of the great Superbowls he had.
Superbowl IX- no catches
Superbowl X- 4 catches 161 yards 1 TD
Superbowl XIII- 7 catches 124 yards 1 TD
Superbowl XIV- 5 catches 79 yards 1 TD
Here are Deion Branch's stats...
502 catches for 6499 yards and 39 TDs
03' Superbowl- 10 catches 143 yards 1 TD
04' Superbowl- 11 catches for 133 yards, superbowl record for catches and named superbowl MVP
11' Superbowl- 3 catches for 45 yards
Branch is actually top 3 all time in Superbowl receptions, and the other 2 WRs are in the HoF I believe.
So if it is alright for Lynn Swann to get in on mediocre stats because he showed up in the big games, why isn't it okay for Deion Branch? I understand they played in different eras, but there were more than a few receivers in Swann's time putting up way bigger numbers. My thinking is that Swann got in because he played for the 70s Steelers. Gary Clark showed up in Superbowls also and put up double the numbers Swann did but I guess there is a different standard for the Steelers and Cowboys and the rest of the league...