What Am I Missing on Riley Matheson?

 By John Turney 

Riley Matheson, #11

In the second week of March, Hall-of-Fame voter Clark Judge organized a meeting with historians and researchers to evaluate the top Pro Football Hall of Fame candidates from the two-way era (roughly 1920–1949, with some flexibility). 

The group discussed contributions and players, but only four earned unanimous support: Al Wistert, Ox Emerson, Verne Lewellen, and Lavvie Dilweg (WELD). Other greats came up, but none achieved universal backing like the four chosen.

One name, Rams guard/linebacker Riley "Rattlesnake" Matheson, appeared on at least three participants’ lists but I spoke up for him because over the years his name had not come up as often in causal online discussions I have read or participated in.

Though he had many similar qualities Matheson never ranked alongside the “big four” (Wistert, Lewellen, Dilweg, and Emerson). My question was simple: "Why not? What am I missing?"

Im my view much of this kind of discussion (who has been passed over by Hall of Fame voters) partly traces back to Bob Carroll’s chapter in "The Hidden Game of Football" (co-authored by Pete Palmer and John Thorn), “Rumblings in the Pantheon.” Carroll argued that applying Bill James’ baseball logic—reassessing overlooked Hall of Fame candidates—could reveal glaring omissions in football. 

He spotlighted Al Wistert, detailing his credentials: multiple All-Pro selections, championships, and blocking for the era’s record-setting runner. Carroll’s charts of “alls” (All-Pros, Pro Bowls, All-Conference honors) highlighted players who stood out. Over the past 30 years, many from that chapter have been inducted, yet the "big four" (among others) remain on the outside.

However, if the James/Carroll premise holds (if player A is in the Hall of Fame and player B has very similar credentials then Player B should be in), why does Riley Matheson lag behind so much? and by that I mean why is his case not as universally accepted as the four selected by the historians this week?

Let’s compare:

• Like WELD, Matheson was a perennial All-Pro—six times, five of them consensus.

• Like the others, he won a championship, though Lewellen and Dilweg have multiple.

• Like Lewellen, he was not voted All-Decade honors.

• Like many, he appeared on All-Time teams, praised by players and media alike.

• Like Dilweg and Emerson, he left a statistical mark. From 1944 (after returning to the Rams from a loan to the Lions) through 1948, no linebacker in pro football intercepted more passes than Matheson—though defensive backs topped him, as should be expected

• From the 1944 through 1947 seasons the Rams led the NFL in yards per rush and twice led the NFL in rushing yards. They also led there league three times in yards per rush in that span.

To make sure, I confirmed with historian/author T.J. Troup, an expert on the era, who’s studied the film and knows players' roles inside out. If you ask him about some player from the mid-1940s not only will you find out he was exclusively a defensive back you'll learn of he was predominantly a safety or defensive halfback and if he was on the left or the right more when he was a halfback. 

Going back to when interceptions were official -- from 1940-48 there were linebackers with more interceptions. But only four -- Charley Brock, Ben Kish, Hall-of-Famer Bulldog Turner and Hall of Famer Alex Wojciechowicz.

Brock's coverage as a linebacker was special -- he's a vastly underrated player. Kish played a little bit of defensive back per Troup. However, none of them spent as much (if any) time with their hands in the dirt as a middle guard/defensive tackle. They just didn't. Matheson was a defensive linemen at least a third of the time ... if not more. And even with that he still picked off as many passes as he did. 

Actually, Matheson seemed like he could freelance whether he'd rush or cover and oftentimes put a hand on the ground when rushing or when it was a likely passing down. So say what you will, Matheson left a top-notch record.

Then there is the issue of longevity. Matheson also played longer than the big four: 10 NFL seasons plus two in the Western Inter-provincial Football Union (CFL’s Western Conference) so 12 season in pro football. 

All that and yet he’s not seen as their equal—or even on par with other notables. Why?

Does it boil down to film? Maybe. Does the fact that the Cleveland Rams were a bad team for the first half of Snake's career? Again, maybe. 

If it is the latter, then it's true. The Rams of the late-1930s and early 1940s were mostly second-division. Facts are facts. But if the issue is the former, them maybe folks can see the things he did.

No, he's not a superior athlete. He kind of has a hunched back, and it not fast or particularly big but for whatever reason as a defender he was always around the ball. He was in on a lot of tackles and when his film is compared to others, at least in the eyes of some, he compares well.

Here are some examples of his play for your review—note that usually Matheson is wearing #11, but he also wore #33 as well when with the Rams and #37 when he was with the 49ers. 

Some tackles—

A couple of pass defections—

Some blocks, both pass protection and run blocks, sweeps, etc.—

Here are some with pressure on passers—

Of course, there are more clips and yes, highlights do not a career make. But the point, for me, is to show that whatever the criticisms of Matheson might me, his film cannot be one of them. He makes a ton of plays, especially on defense. So, if folks say his All-Pro resume is light, or he played during World War II, or whatever, fine. Just apply it evenly to others who played in that era, who did not serve in the military. Just do the same with his film.

In fact, to me, his film enhances his case. He's a better player than I thought he was before taking a close look. 

But, you can decide for yourself.