Derrick Mason & the HOF (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

Derrick Mason only became a regular starting WR at age 26, so he missed out on several years of would could have been decent production. In 8 of the past 9 seasons, he's quietly gone over 1,000 yards receiving. IF. and it is an unlikely if, he were to have two more years over 1,000 yards receiving, he would become only the third WR to have had 10 years with 1,000 yards receiving to go along with Jerry Rice and Randy Moss. That would also rank him in the Top 12 in receiving yards and Top 7-8 in receptions (at least until some of the newer crop of guys catch up). While no one would mistake him for an elite talent or huge statistical producer, he would have had quite a nice career. If he did have two more decent seasons (1,000 yards +), would he merit HOF discussion (Y/N)?

 

[D'OHtis]

As you stated, very nice career. HOF? no. Perhaps the most underrated WR of the last decade? Quite possibly.

I think he's got another couple solid years ahead if he chooses to play in Baltimore [all bets off if he plays elsewhere, which I find doubtful]

 

[cobalt_27]

I have a lot of respect for Mason and the nice career he's put together. But, I ain't seeing it.

I don't have all the data in front of me, but I suspect he would not have been considered even in the top-10 of WRs in any more than 2 or 3 seasons. What did he have, 1 pro bowl appearance (2000?). There just was no special "it" factor with him. Solid, steady, consistent. But, nothing that delivers HOF hardware in my eyes.

 

[rascal]

This conversation ends and starts with Rod Smith.

 

[Tau837]

No, and it's not close.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Mason has had a nice career, but Cris Carter hasn't made it three times, and you think Mason has a prayer? He has no chance.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

Classic accumulater. Good player, not a Hall of Famer.

 

[Jewell]

As you stated, very nice career. HOF? no. Perhaps the most underrated WR of the last decade? Quite possibly.

Either him or Driver.And, you're right, very nice career, but not HOF. Unfortunately, people are often saddled with the early impression they give off. Because of the slow start to his career nobody has ever thought of Mason as a Hall of Famer. Even if Mason were to accumulate all the numbers stated in the OP, the Hall voters still wouldn't give him the time of day.

 

[TS Garp]

Great career but definitely not HOF material. He's topped 1,200 yards in a season only once and never had 10 td's in a seaon. Also, despite being a great accumulater, he has less career yards and td's than Mushin Muhammad, and I don't think anyone thinks Moose should be in the HOF.

 

[EBF]

He's sort of like a baseball player who hits .285 with 20 homers every year for 15 years. Those are great numbers, but this kind of player will always be overshadowed by someone who hits .330 with 35 homers every year for 10 years.

Mason has always been good. Never dominant. The best WRs of this era had similar longevity and greater peak seasons (Holt, Bruce, Owens, Moss, Harrison, Ochocinco).

 

[SSOG]

Given your hypothetical (two more 1,000 yard seasons), Derrick Mason = Charlie Joiner. Receiver who managed to remain good for a long, long, long time. Unfortunately, the Hall already screwed up and elected Joiner (far and away the most undeserving WR in the hall, IMO, miles ahead of Lynn Swann). The Hall wouldn't compound their mistake my electing Mason, too. I mean, for crying out loud, the guy has only made one pro bowl in his entire career as a WR (although he has another pro bowl and 1st team AP All Pro as a returner).

Just among his peers, Moss, Harrison, Owens, Bruce, and Holt would be unquestionably more deserving. Higher peaks, just as much longevity. Those are the "slam dunk, no brainer" picks. In addition, I'd say Carter and Brown are both clearly more deserving among retired players not yet in the hall. That makes 7 WRs ahead of Mason in the queue, and these are just the "there's not even any debate" guys on the list. I'd also say that Hines Ward, Jimmy Smith, Chad Ochocinco, and Rod Smith would almost certainly be ahead of Mason in the queue. I'd take Steve Smith over him, too, although that'll probably be a much more controversial selection. Also, Driver has one fewer 1,000 yard season than Mason so far, but Driver's also a year younger- Driver's as likely to get to 10 1,000 yard seasons as Mason is, and Driver would have 3 pro bowls to pair that with, so I'd take Driver over Mason, too. And that's not even counting the young guys- if Mason gets 2 more 1,000 yard seasons and then retires, then he won't be eligible for HoF consideration until 7 years from now. I'd imagine that by 7 years from now, multiple younger guys will have built up a much better case (Andre Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, Reggie Wayne, Calvin Johnson, Roddy White, Miles Austin, etc).

Mason was a great receiver, but I think, no matter how the rest of his career plays out, the best thing anyone will be able to say about him by the time he's up for enshrinement is that he's the 12th best receiver not yet in the hall of fame. That's not much to base a candidacy on.

 

[Wadsworth]

Jimmy Smith also started late and went over 1,000 yards in 9 out of 10 seasons, only missing on the season he served a 4 games suspension. Jimmy's peak seasons were more impressive and I'd give him a boost since his reason for starting late was out of his control(serious injury and emergency surgery). Smith averaged 1,200 yards a season over effectively the only 10 seasons of his career, a mark Mason has only surpassed once(1,303 in 2003, Smith did it 5 times). By pretty much any comparison Smith is more impressive than Mason, and I don't think Smith has any chance at the Hall.

 

[Wadsworth]

This conversation ends and starts with Rod Smith.

Rod Smith and Jimmy Smith's career stats are extremely similar with Jimmy being slightly more productive over a shorter period of time but Rod having a more storied post season career and obviously not having the cocaine issues that tarnished Jimmy's career. I think they will be the yard stick, so to speak, that other WRs will have to surpass to be worthy of HoF consideration, but I doubt either will ever get into the Hall. If one does, I don't see how you can keep the other out.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

I have a lot of respect for Mason and the nice career he's put together. But, I ain't seeing it. I don't have all the data in front of me, but I suspect he would not have been considered even in the top-10 of WRs in any more than 2 or 3 seasons. What did he have, 1 pro bowl appearance (2000?). There just was no special "it" factor with him. Solid, steady, consistent. But, nothing that delivers HOF hardware in my eyes.

I rarely agree with Cobalt and how he puts things but this pretty much validates how I feel about Mason. Good football player though.

 

[FUBAR]

Hall of Very Good

Hall of Underappreciated

Hall of Fame

 

[rzrback77]

I think that the stat comparison is going to be a lot of trouble going forward because of the proliferation of passing offenses.

Mason is a very good player, but not hall of fame level.

 

[David Yudkin]

Clearly I don't think Mason is a great candidate or even a marginal one, but I wonder if 40 years from now the Veterans Committee might at least look at him much like they did with Floyd Little this year.

I agree that Mason was never a beast statistically, but some of that has to do with playing for the Titans and Ravens. For example, Mason's teams ranked in the Top 5 in attempts once, yardage once, and passing TDs once. By comparison, Isaac Bruce's teams ranked in the Top 5 in attmepts 8 times, passing yards 8 times, and passing TDs 3 times (all three times at #1). Much like Hines Ward (who has a much stronger HOF case than Mason), is it the receivers fault his team ran the ball a ton instead of flinging it all over the park?

I think this begs the question which should be considered a greater accomplishment, a year with 1,471 yards on a team with 5,232 passing yards (Bruce as the #2 yardage guy on the Rams in 2000) for 28% of his team's receiving yards or 1,128 receiving yards on a team with 3,558 passing yards (Mason in 1999 as the #1 yardage guy on the Titans in 2001) for almost 32% of his team's receiving yards. Obviously Bruce's season stands out more in terms of total yards, but are we supposed to forgo HOF consideration for receivers that didn't play on profilic passing teams?

 

[David Yudkin]

He's sort of like a baseball player who hits .285 with 20 homers every year for 15 years. Those are great numbers, but this kind of player will always be overshadowed by someone who hits .330 with 35 homers every year for 10 years. Mason has always been good. Never dominant. The best WRs of this era had similar longevity and greater peak seasons (Holt, Bruce, Owens, Moss, Harrison, Ochocinco).

I believe Craig Biggio fits your first example (in fact probably slightly worse than your example) and will be inducted rather easily, while Albert Belle (not quite the average as you listed) falls more into the second category and is already off the ballot. Bottom line, I don't think there are 100% truths in any HOF induction process. I do agree with others, though, that using the lowest common denominator approach to HOF consideration is not a great argument (ie, picking the "worst" player inducted and saying "so and so got in so PLAYER X should be in."

 

[Chase Stuart]

Mason only ranked in the top 10 in receiving yards once in his career, which is just about enough to keep him out alone.

That said, he was always on run-first teams. I think that's undervalued him for most of his career. He wouldn't be an awful HOF choice, except for the fact that there are at least a dozen more deserving guys at his position. With only five guys getting in a year, Mason's got almost no chance.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

If Mason had been on a couple Super Bowl winning teams then I would argue for him as hard as I do Hines Ward.

Sure 40 years down the road they might induct them, anything is possible but there are other guys in Mason's mold that accomplished more.

I do love him as my WR3 every year as people load up on "potential" and I draft sure things.

 

[David Yudkin]

Mason only ranked in the top 10 in receiving yards once in his career, which is just about enough to keep him out alone.That said, he was always on run-first teams. I think that's undervalued him for most of his career. He wouldn't be an awful HOF choice, except for the fact that there are at least a dozen more deserving guys at his position. With only five guys getting in a year, Mason's got almost no chance.

I agree that the regular voting panel won't even look at him more than MAYBE giving him a token inclusion in the "round of 24" candidates that they announce. I was more looking way downstream when the Veterans Committe seems to find some guys that (by then) not many people will remember.

 

[Tau837]

Clearly I don't think Mason is a great candidate or even a marginal one, but I wonder if 40 years from now the Veterans Committee might at least look at him much like they did with Floyd Little this year.I agree that Mason was never a beast statistically, but some of that has to do with playing for the Titans and Ravens. For example, Mason's teams ranked in the Top 5 in attempts once, yardage once, and passing TDs once. By comparison, Isaac Bruce's teams ranked in the Top 5 in attmepts 8 times, passing yards 8 times, and passing TDs 3 times (all three times at #1). Much like Hines Ward (who has a much stronger HOF case than Mason), is it the receivers fault his team ran the ball a ton instead of flinging it all over the park?I think this begs the question which should be considered a greater accomplishment, a year with 1,471 yards on a team with 5,232 passing yards (Bruce as the #2 yardage guy on the Rams in 2000) for 28% of his team's receiving yards or 1,128 receiving yards on a team with 3,558 passing yards (Mason in 1999 as the #1 yardage guy on the Titans in 2001) for almost 32% of his team's receiving yards. Obviously Bruce's season stands out more in terms of total yards, but are we supposed to forgo HOF consideration for receivers that didn't play on profilic passing teams?

1. If Mason is the kind of player the Veterans Committee would consider nominating in 40 years, then I hope the Veterans Committee goes away... as that implies it would be lowering the quality of those inducted. I don't know enough about the players they have nominated in recent years, though judging by the reaction of others, they may already be lowering the quality.2. With regard to playing on run first teams, it is perhaps unfortunate for Mason in terms of his HOF candidacy... but it is also irrelevant. Players are judged on what they did in their careers, not what they might have done under different circumstances.3. Furthermore, Mason played 8 seasons with the Titans, which implies that he voluntarily extended his contract at least once. Then he signed as a free agent with Baltimore after the 2004 season, during which Baltimore was 26th in passing attempts and 8th in rushing attempts. So IMO Mason is largely responsible for choosing to play for run first teams in his career.4. No, we aren't supposed to forego HOF consideration for WRs who didn't play on prolific passing teams. But such WRs have to do more with their limited opportunities. Irvin, Swann, Stallworth, and Monk are examples of HOF WRs who played on run first teams for most if not all of their careers. Though it is arguable that they are among the less deserving WRs in the HOF, they were able to stand out enough despite not playing in pass happy offenses to earn induction.

 

[Tau837]

He's sort of like a baseball player who hits .285 with 20 homers every year for 15 years. Those are great numbers, but this kind of player will always be overshadowed by someone who hits .330 with 35 homers every year for 10 years. Mason has always been good. Never dominant. The best WRs of this era had similar longevity and greater peak seasons (Holt, Bruce, Owens, Moss, Harrison, Ochocinco).

I believe Craig Biggio fits your first example (in fact probably slightly worse than your example) and will be inducted rather easily, while Albert Belle (not quite the average as you listed) falls more into the second category and is already off the ballot. Bottom line, I don't think there are 100% truths in any HOF induction process. I do agree with others, though, that using the lowest common denominator approach to HOF consideration is not a great argument (ie, picking the "worst" player inducted and saying "so and so got in so PLAYER X should be in."

The example was poorly stated, because positional differences matter a lot in baseball (e.g., Biggio playing catcher and second base vs. Belle playing outfield).And if you are trying to draw a parallel between Mason and the .285 hitter, it doesn't work. Biggio won 5 Silver Slugger awards, 4 Gold Gloves, and made 7 All Star teams. Mason has done nothing remotely similar to those accomplishments in his career. Many consider Biggio a top 5 or top 10 second baseman of all time. No one considers Mason even a top 50 WR of all time.

 

[David Yudkin]

4. No, we aren't supposed to forego HOF consideration for WRs who didn't play on prolific passing teams. But such WRs have to do more with their limited opportunities. Irvin, Swann, Stallworth, and Monk are examples of HOF WRs who played on run first teams for most if not all of their careers. Though it is arguable that they are among the less deserving WRs in the HOF, they were able to stand out enough despite not playing in pass happy offenses to earn induction.

IMO, the guys you just listed made it more for being on multiple SB winning teams than their raw career numbers. IIRC, all of them won 3-4 rings. I wonder how much not winning a title actually factors into the balloting. I would guess peak performers it doesn't really matter but for fringe guys it will be held against them.

 

[David Yudkin]

He's sort of like a baseball player who hits .285 with 20 homers every year for 15 years. Those are great numbers, but this kind of player will always be overshadowed by someone who hits .330 with 35 homers every year for 10 years. Mason has always been good. Never dominant. The best WRs of this era had similar longevity and greater peak seasons (Holt, Bruce, Owens, Moss, Harrison, Ochocinco).

I believe Craig Biggio fits your first example (in fact probably slightly worse than your example) and will be inducted rather easily, while Albert Belle (not quite the average as you listed) falls more into the second category and is already off the ballot. Bottom line, I don't think there are 100% truths in any HOF induction process. I do agree with others, though, that using the lowest common denominator approach to HOF consideration is not a great argument (ie, picking the "worst" player inducted and saying "so and so got in so PLAYER X should be in."

The example was poorly stated, because positional differences matter a lot in baseball (e.g., Biggio playing catcher and second base vs. Belle playing outfield).And if you are trying to draw a parallel between Mason and the .285 hitter, it doesn't work. Biggio won 5 Silver Slugger awards, 4 Gold Gloves, and made 7 All Star teams. Mason has done nothing remotely similar to those accomplishments in his career. Many consider Biggio a top 5 or top 10 second baseman of all time. No one considers Mason even a top 50 WR of all time.

I wasn't comparing Mason to anyone in baseball. The point was that there are times when sheer numbers don't tell the whole story (as you just pointed out).

 

[David Yudkin]

Here were the Seniors Committee inductees over the years . . .

2010 - **** LEBEAU, FLOYD LITTLE

2009 - BOB HAYES

2008 - EMMITT THOMAS

2007 - GENE HICKERSON, CHARLIE SANDERS

2006 - JOHN MADDEN, RAYFIELD WRIGHT

2005 - BENNY FRIEDMAN, FRITZ POLLARD

2004 - BOB BROWN

2003 - HANK STRAM

2002 - GEORGE ALLEN

2001 - NICK BUONICONTI

2000 - DAVE WILCOX

1999 - BILLY SHAW

1998 - TOMMY McDONALD

1996 - LOU CREEKMUR

1995 - HENRY JORDAN

1994 - LEROY KELLY

1991 - STAN JONES

1990 - BOB ST. CLAIR

1987 - JOHN HENRY JOHNSON

1986 - DOAK WALKER

1985 - FRANK GATSKI

1984 - ARNIE WEINMEISTER

1982 - GEORGE MUSSO

1981 - RED BADGRO

1978 - TUFFY LEEMANS

1977 - BILL WILLIS

1976 - RAY FLAHERTY

1974 - TONY CANADEO

1972 - ACE PARKER

Looking at this list, Mason probably won't get much love here either. It shbould be interesting for some other players from this current or recent era, as a lot of players are putting up numbers that will likely surpass their predacessors.

 

[Adebisi]

This is a silly thread. Of course not.

 

[EBF]

He's sort of like a baseball player who hits .285 with 20 homers every year for 15 years. Those are great numbers, but this kind of player will always be overshadowed by someone who hits .330 with 35 homers every year for 10 years. Mason has always been good. Never dominant. The best WRs of this era had similar longevity and greater peak seasons (Holt, Bruce, Owens, Moss, Harrison, Ochocinco).

I believe Craig Biggio fits your first example (in fact probably slightly worse than your example) and will be inducted rather easily, while Albert Belle (not quite the average as you listed) falls more into the second category and is already off the ballot. Bottom line, I don't think there are 100% truths in any HOF induction process. I do agree with others, though, that using the lowest common denominator approach to HOF consideration is not a great argument (ie, picking the "worst" player inducted and saying "so and so got in so PLAYER X should be in."

As mentioned, you have to take the position into account. Biggio was very productive for his position and he eclipsed the 3,000 hit mark, which is an automatic ticket to Cooperstown. Albert Belle had a couple of elite years and then faded into obscurity.Moreover, politics play a role in the selection process. Biggio will always be remembered as the consummate gamer. Scrappy and tough with a never-say-die attitude. Belle will be remembered as temperamental headcase whose off-field exploits tainted his career.I'm on board with the idea of Mason as an underappreciated talent with great longevity, but I don't view him as one of the very best players of his era. He's clearly a notch below the elite.

 

[SSOG]

Clearly I don't think Mason is a great candidate or even a marginal one, but I wonder if 40 years from now the Veterans Committee might at least look at him much like they did with Floyd Little this year.

Maybe I'm just overly cynical, but I'm pretty sure that Floyd Little's election had as much (if not more) to do with the dearth of Broncos than it did with Little's career. Maybe if 40 years from now the Titans/Oilers have appeared in 6 more Superbowls and haven't gotten anyone else into the hall, then Mason will get some love.

 

[JJP]

If the Tennessee Titans have their own Hall of Fame, Mason would be worthy. But for Canton? Not a chance in hell. Somebody earlier mentioned he has less yards and TDs than Muhammid......Canton will never, ever come calling for him, so no chance at Canton for Mason.

Here's another one: Steve Smith (the Panthers version). May have some shot but if Carter isn't in, I'd lean toward no.

 

[daveR]

The Hall of Fame is for the best of the best. /thread

 

[FUBAR]

Clearly I don't think Mason is a great candidate or even a marginal one, but I wonder if 40 years from now the Veterans Committee might at least look at him much like they did with Floyd Little this year.I agree that Mason was never a beast statistically, but some of that has to do with playing for the Titans and Ravens. For example, Mason's teams ranked in the Top 5 in attempts once, yardage once, and passing TDs once. By comparison, Isaac Bruce's teams ranked in the Top 5 in attmepts 8 times, passing yards 8 times, and passing TDs 3 times (all three times at #1). Much like Hines Ward (who has a much stronger HOF case than Mason), is it the receivers fault his team ran the ball a ton instead of flinging it all over the park?I think this begs the question which should be considered a greater accomplishment, a year with 1,471 yards on a team with 5,232 passing yards (Bruce as the #2 yardage guy on the Rams in 2000) for 28% of his team's receiving yards or 1,128 receiving yards on a team with 3,558 passing yards (Mason in 1999 as the #1 yardage guy on the Titans in 2001) for almost 32% of his team's receiving yards. Obviously Bruce's season stands out more in terms of total yards, but are we supposed to forgo HOF consideration for receivers that didn't play on profilic passing teams?

If he were a HOF worthy talent, McNair would have thrown to him more. The Titans philosophy may be run first but a great WR will make the coach throw more, as you utilize your best players.

 

[Truman]

Unfortunately I believe it would. No chance he would get in though with the crop of receivers still waiting, at least 3 of whom would still have superior numbers. Hopefully Tim Brown will be waiting a long time - never an elite talent IMO.

 

[Bob Magaw]

i was going to ask how many times (if any) mason made pro bowl, but SSOG noted it (once, as a WR)...

it seems to weigh heavily in the voting, with all pro being even better, of course (as does being a key part of super bowl dynasties).

wonder if any inductees at the WR position (in the modern era, anyway) have had so few pro bowls (which reminds me... when did the pro bowl start?)

* chase also mentioned only once in the top 10 receiving yards... & he was never a big scorer, so he didn't have that going for him. never won a super bowl. and agreed, many more worthy candidates in queue ahead of him (carter, tim brown & bruce, to name a few).

 

[SSOG]

i was going to ask how many times (if any) mason made pro bowl, but SSOG noted it (once, as a WR)...it seems to weigh heavily in the voting, with all pro being even better, of course (as does being a key part of super bowl dynasties).wonder if any inductees at the WR position (in the modern era, anyway) have had so few pro bowls (which reminds me... when did the pro bowl start?)* chase also mentioned only once in the top 10 receiving yards... & he was never a big scorer, so he didn't have that going for him. never won a super bowl. and agreed, many more worthy candidates in queue ahead of him (carter, tim brown & bruce, to name a few).

As near as I can tell, the Pro Bowl started in 1938.The fewest pro bowls I can find by a Hall of Fame "receiver" is Tom Fears (1 pro bowl, 1 first team AP All Pro). Of course, Fears has a little bit of back story- not only was he part of the 1950's All Decade team, but he was also the first player to ever line up on the line of scrimmage but wide of the tackle... which makes him the first "wide receiver" in NFL history. He was also a 4-time second team All Pro (no pro bowls during those seasons, though), and he set a handful of records. Clearly he's a "special case".The fewest pro bowls by a non "special case" WR is 3, a total shared by 5 WRs who pretty much read as a "who's who" of the worst WR decisions the Hall has ever made (or, at least, the WRs whose inclusions are most commonly argued were a mistake). For starters, you've got my man Charlie Joiner, who I've already badmouthed enough this thread- he posted 3 Pro Bowls, 1 first team AP All Pro, and if I recall correctly, was 2nd in receiving yards when he retired behind Largent. Next up, you've got "Mr. 8-yard Curl" himself, Art Monk. Monk had 3 Pro Bowls, 1 first team AP All Pro, and briefly owned the all-time receptions record (although he'd lost it to Rice by the time he retired). Then you've got Lynn Swann, 3 time pro bowler, 1 time 1AP, SBMVP, and Walter Peyton Man of the Year recipient. Next up is "Bullet" Bob Hayes, 3 time Pro Bowler, 2 time First Team AP All Pro, the man for whom zone defenses were supposedly invented, and one of the few Seniors candidates who have actually been REJECTED by the committee (he got in on his second go-round from the committee). There's also Dante Lavelli, but he played 4 years in the AAFC, which didn't have a pro bowl, he played both ways, and he won a bazillion championships with the Cleveland Browns... so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt (to be honest, I don't know all that much about him, so I can't say one way or another).No matter how you slice it, Mason's career is nowhere near as good as the worst WRs in the HoF, even as the guys who don't deserve to be there in the first place (*cough*cough*JOINER*cough*).

 

[Sweet Love]

In a way, I look at Mason in the way we look at the "magical" 370 carry rule for RBs. On these boards that myth has been debunked, and if you look at RBs, we also think of 1000 yards as some sort of milestone...but in reality, it is just a number. When David mentioned him as one of three WRs with x amount of years at 1000 yards, Mason puts the worth/meaning of that stat to the test. If you look at how many 1100 yards seasons he had, it is just three and just one year over 1200 yards. What I am getting at is yes, he has eight 1000 yard seasons, but five of them he barely got over the mark (and to that, is that a mark of greatness?). As others have alluded to he just never stood out among his peers (one top 10 season) and for someone that played during an era of pinball receiving numbers, he was mostly in the middle of the pack for WR#1s.

 

[David Yudkin]

In a way, I look at Mason in the way we look at the "magical" 370 carry rule for RBs. On these boards that myth has been debunked, and if you look at RBs, we also think of 1000 yards as some sort of milestone...but in reality, it is just a number. When David mentioned him as one of three WRs with x amount of years at 1000 yards, Mason puts the worth/meaning of that stat to the test. If you look at how many 1100 yards seasons he had, it is just three and just one year over 1200 yards. What I am getting at is yes, he has eight 1000 yard seasons, but five of them he barely got over the mark (and to that, is that a mark of greatness?). As others have alluded to he just never stood out among his peers (one top 10 season) and for someone that played during an era of pinball receiving numbers, he was mostly in the middle of the pack for WR#1s.

I never thought of Mason as a potential HOFer (and still don't), but as I mentioned somewhere in here, is it a p[layer's fault that his team's philosophy goes against posting big numbers. In Mason's case, both thte Titans and Ravens have predominently been strong defensive and running teams . . . not pourous prolific passing teams.So I will ask (in theory) again, which is a better accomplishment:Accumulating 1,200 receiving yards on a team that had 5,000 passing yards- OR -Amassing 1,000 receiving yards on a team that had 3,500 passing yards.I realize most would still say 1,200 yards is more impressive (and I can't say that I disagree), but I do think that if we looked at certain players over the years that played on teams that were heavily slanted one way or the other (or played on terrible teams) that there were a lot of players that have been all but forgotten that had very solid careers. Does that make them HOF worthy? Likely not, but many times I think there were factors out of their control as to how their totoal numbers played out that had very little to do with their performance.

 

[Chase Stuart]

In a way, I look at Mason in the way we look at the "magical" 370 carry rule for RBs. On these boards that myth has been debunked, and if you look at RBs, we also think of 1000 yards as some sort of milestone...but in reality, it is just a number. When David mentioned him as one of three WRs with x amount of years at 1000 yards, Mason puts the worth/meaning of that stat to the test. If you look at how many 1100 yards seasons he had, it is just three and just one year over 1200 yards. What I am getting at is yes, he has eight 1000 yard seasons, but five of them he barely got over the mark (and to that, is that a mark of greatness?). As others have alluded to he just never stood out among his peers (one top 10 season) and for someone that played during an era of pinball receiving numbers, he was mostly in the middle of the pack for WR#1s.

I never thought of Mason as a potential HOFer (and still don't), but as I mentioned somewhere in here, is it a p[layer's fault that his team's philosophy goes against posting big numbers. In Mason's case, both thte Titans and Ravens have predominently been strong defensive and running teams . . . not pourous prolific passing teams.So I will ask (in theory) again, which is a better accomplishment:Accumulating 1,200 receiving yards on a team that had 5,000 passing yards- OR -Amassing 1,000 receiving yards on a team that had 3,500 passing yards.I realize most would still say 1,200 yards is more impressive (and I can't say that I disagree), but I do think that if we looked at certain players over the years that played on teams that were heavily slanted one way or the other (or played on terrible teams) that there were a lot of players that have been all but forgotten that had very solid careers. Does that make them HOF worthy? Likely not, but many times I think there were factors out of their control as to how their totoal numbers played out that had very little to do with their performance.

Assuming both teams had the same number of pass attempts, the first receiver. Assuming both teams averaged the same yards per attempt, the second WR.

 

[David Yudkin]

In a way, I look at Mason in the way we look at the "magical" 370 carry rule for RBs. On these boards that myth has been debunked, and if you look at RBs, we also think of 1000 yards as some sort of milestone...but in reality, it is just a number. When David mentioned him as one of three WRs with x amount of years at 1000 yards, Mason puts the worth/meaning of that stat to the test. If you look at how many 1100 yards seasons he had, it is just three and just one year over 1200 yards. What I am getting at is yes, he has eight 1000 yard seasons, but five of them he barely got over the mark (and to that, is that a mark of greatness?). As others have alluded to he just never stood out among his peers (one top 10 season) and for someone that played during an era of pinball receiving numbers, he was mostly in the middle of the pack for WR#1s.

I never thought of Mason as a potential HOFer (and still don't), but as I mentioned somewhere in here, is it a p[layer's fault that his team's philosophy goes against posting big numbers. In Mason's case, both thte Titans and Ravens have predominently been strong defensive and running teams . . . not pourous prolific passing teams.So I will ask (in theory) again, which is a better accomplishment:Accumulating 1,200 receiving yards on a team that had 5,000 passing yards- OR -Amassing 1,000 receiving yards on a team that had 3,500 passing yards.I realize most would still say 1,200 yards is more impressive (and I can't say that I disagree), but I do think that if we looked at certain players over the years that played on teams that were heavily slanted one way or the other (or played on terrible teams) that there were a lot of players that have been all but forgotten that had very solid careers. Does that make them HOF worthy? Likely not, but many times I think there were factors out of their control as to how their totoal numbers played out that had very little to do with their performance.

Assuming both teams had the same number of pass attempts, the first receiver. Assuming both teams averaged the same yards per attempt, the second WR.

The implication being that the 1200 yard guy did so because his team simply passed more and all other things were equal.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The implication being that the 1200 yard guy did so because his team simply passed more and all other things were equal.

The implication being if the teams had the same number of pass attempts, the 1200 yard guy was part of a significantly better offense and gained more yards per team pass attempt. If the teams averaged the same yards per attempt, the 1000 yard guy was a bigger part of an equally good offense and averaged more yards per team pass attempt.

 

[Sweet Love]

In a way, I look at Mason in the way we look at the "magical" 370 carry rule for RBs. On these boards that myth has been debunked, and if you look at RBs, we also think of 1000 yards as some sort of milestone...but in reality, it is just a number. When David mentioned him as one of three WRs with x amount of years at 1000 yards, Mason puts the worth/meaning of that stat to the test. If you look at how many 1100 yards seasons he had, it is just three and just one year over 1200 yards. What I am getting at is yes, he has eight 1000 yard seasons, but five of them he barely got over the mark (and to that, is that a mark of greatness?). As others have alluded to he just never stood out among his peers (one top 10 season) and for someone that played during an era of pinball receiving numbers, he was mostly in the middle of the pack for WR#1s.

I never thought of Mason as a potential HOFer (and still don't), but as I mentioned somewhere in here, is it a p[layer's fault that his team's philosophy goes against posting big numbers. In Mason's case, both thte Titans and Ravens have predominently been strong defensive and running teams . . . not pourous prolific passing teams.So I will ask (in theory) again, which is a better accomplishment:Accumulating 1,200 receiving yards on a team that had 5,000 passing yards- OR -Amassing 1,000 receiving yards on a team that had 3,500 passing yards.I realize most would still say 1,200 yards is more impressive (and I can't say that I disagree), but I do think that if we looked at certain players over the years that played on teams that were heavily slanted one way or the other (or played on terrible teams) that there were a lot of players that have been all but forgotten that had very solid careers. Does that make them HOF worthy? Likely not, but many times I think there were factors out of their control as to how their totoal numbers played out that had very little to do with their performance.

I think when we get into this territory, we take away from the individual and go to team as a whole and there are just too many variables around that. For example, do you take away from Brady because Belicheck is his coach (or when Belicheck goes to the HOF, do you take away from his body of work b/c Brady was his QB)? Hey, I see where you are coming from (often the detractor to why T. Davis is not HOF worthy, of course along with his short career), but in the end, we can only judge with what we know.When posting I did think of one other variable...you would have to put a baseline to it (and that in itself would be arbitrary), but when I look at HOF candidates, I look at difference makers, guys who could take over a game. If you called an exceptional performance a "wow game" for example, maybe something over 150 yards or 3 TDs, how many of those would Mason have compared to his contemporaries (for the record he had two games over 150 yards receiving compared to 4 for Mush Muhammad and even 3 for Brandon Marshall...again it is an arbitrary number, but gets to my point that he never took the games over.I guess what I am saying is that we "know what we know" and Mason was a guy who had a wonderful career, but only put up over 1200 yards once in his career and I don't care if he was blind in one eye (BTW Wesley Walker has triple the amount of 150 yard games and more TDs than Mason), you are dealt the cards you are dealt, and you have to end it there.

 

[dickey moe]

He's sort of like a baseball player who hits .285 with 20 homers every year for 15 years. Those are great numbers, but this kind of player will always be overshadowed by someone who hits .330 with 35 homers every year for 10 years. Mason has always been good. Never dominant. The best WRs of this era had similar longevity and greater peak seasons (Holt, Bruce, Owens, Moss, Harrison, Ochocinco).

Ochocinco has a LONNNNGGG way to go before he can be considered a Hall of Famer.

 

[Tau837]

He's sort of like a baseball player who hits .285 with 20 homers every year for 15 years. Those are great numbers, but this kind of player will always be overshadowed by someone who hits .330 with 35 homers every year for 10 years. Mason has always been good. Never dominant. The best WRs of this era had similar longevity and greater peak seasons (Holt, Bruce, Owens, Moss, Harrison, Ochocinco).

Ochocinco has a LONNNNGGG way to go before he can be considered a Hall of Famer.

But I believe EBF's point was that Ocho is a lot closer to HOF induction than Mason.

 

[David Yudkin]

He's sort of like a baseball player who hits .285 with 20 homers every year for 15 years. Those are great numbers, but this kind of player will always be overshadowed by someone who hits .330 with 35 homers every year for 10 years. Mason has always been good. Never dominant. The best WRs of this era had similar longevity and greater peak seasons (Holt, Bruce, Owens, Moss, Harrison, Ochocinco).

Ochocinco has a LONNNNGGG way to go before he can be considered a Hall of Famer.

But I believe EBF's point was that Ocho is a lot closer to HOF induction than Mason.

Chad is on a better track to the HOF than Mason ever was or will be. Clearly Johnson/Ochocinco needs to play several more years while staqying productive, but his production so far has been far greater than Mason's (career totals notwithstanding).

 

[JohnnyU]

Hell, let's let every decent WR in the HOF.

 

[switz]

I think Mason suffers from being good, but not great. Probably severely underrated to be honest. But among his contemporaries he just doesn't stack up as HOF material.

 

[SSOG]

He's sort of like a baseball player who hits .285 with 20 homers every year for 15 years. Those are great numbers, but this kind of player will always be overshadowed by someone who hits .330 with 35 homers every year for 10 years. Mason has always been good. Never dominant. The best WRs of this era had similar longevity and greater peak seasons (Holt, Bruce, Owens, Moss, Harrison, Ochocinco).

Ochocinco has a LONNNNGGG way to go before he can be considered a Hall of Famer.

He's got a way to go, but certainly not a LONNNNGGG way to go. If you compare him to Torry Holt (who is, in my opinion, a borderline HoFer), then Holt has 7 PBs, 1 first team AP All Pro, and 1 second team AP All Pro, while Ochocinco has 6, 2, and 1 respectively. Ocho is about 2 seasons away from passing Holt in total TDs, and about 3 seasons away from passing Holt in total yardage, and neither goal is unreachable (all they require is for him to average 1100/4 at ages 32, 33, and 34- for comparison purposes, Ward just had 1160/6 at age 33, Driver just had 1060/6 at age 34, and Mason just had 1030/7 at age 35). I think that as long as Ochocinco follows a normal WR aging trajectory, he's about 2 years away from having as strong of a HoF case as Torry Holt or Isaac Bruce.

 

[switz]

Hopefully Tim Brown will be waiting a long time - never an elite talent IMO.

Not to derail - but are you nuts????

 

[Wadsworth]

Hopefully Tim Brown will be waiting a long time - never an elite talent IMO.

Not to derail - but are you nuts????

I guess it depends on how much weight you give his return production. As a WR alone he was very productive, but his best 10 seasons weren't markedly better than some WRs who are bubble candidates at best. He played 17 seasons, 255 games; there is at least somewhat of an Art Monk element to his career.

 

[CalBear]

Hopefully Tim Brown will be waiting a long time - never an elite talent IMO.

Not to derail - but are you nuts????

I guess it depends on how much weight you give his return production. As a WR alone he was very productive, but his best 10 seasons weren't markedly better than some WRs who are bubble candidates at best. He played 17 seasons, 255 games; there is at least somewhat of an Art Monk element to his career.

Art Monk was a 3-time Pro bowler; Tim Brown was a 7-time Pro Bowler as a WR (two more as a returner). Brown finished top-5 in receiving yards 4 times, top-10 in receiving TDs 7 times; Monk finished top-5 in receiving yards twice, top-10 in receiving TDs once. If there's an Art Monk element to his career, it's a "Tim Brown sure was a lot better than Art Monk, eh?" element.