Does Hines Ward belong in the Hall of Fame? (1 Viewer)

[Jake22]

But I was stunned to see how many people think he should be in the HOF.

26% stuns you? Half of that 26% are Steelers fans.

From my personal experience being a longtime Steeler fan, I know of some non-steeler fans that believe Ward could make it to the HOF...I personally have not even thought about that yet, but have had people bring it up to me, so there ARE fans of other teams that think the guy has been good enough to get mention already while he still has some years left to play...to me that says alot, give him time.Not being first team all-pro means nothing, there are alot more things to factor in here...If you ask some people, I'm sure there are people that would give votes to Boldin and Fitzgerald too, it's too early to tell on guys like this right now but Ward has done nothing to hurt his chances of getting in from what I've seen.Having a nice career and MVP of a SB gives him bonus points though, which is why it's being discussed here right now...

 

[Jake22]

When you consider that he played in the most pass happy era in NFL history, he really has virtually very little shot at the Hall of Fame.

Stats matter, to pretend they don't is absurd. And that's got nothing to do with fantasy.

You're not making a good case here.

Being in a "pass happy era" means that "Joe Average" WR puts up big numbers in any given year, and it happens every year now...Ward is not that guy, he's way above that and has proven it over his career...you KNOW what your getting in Ward, as far as one year wonders at WR, this era has produced more of them than any other era...

 

[Sheriff66]

What's odd is that if Ward played in say the 50s (when there was more smashmouth football) or say the 70s (when receiving totals were pretty barren), Ward would probably have a much stronger case. But since he played in an era of video game statistics, I think he suffers in comparison to some of the other players already mentioned by many in this thread. They will only induct a limited number of WR from this era, and IMO there are already several other players from his time frame more deserving than Ward. Ward may be a better all around player, but in the game that's played today that may not be a total positive when compared to the other high production receivers.

I amazes me the Yudkin and Chase think only stats get you in, I thought you two were more intelligent than that.

 

[Sheriff66]

When you consider that he played in the most pass happy era in NFL history, he really has virtually very little shot at the Hall of Fame.Stats matter, to pretend they don't is absurd. And that's got nothing to do with fantasy.

He will have enough stats to get in

 

[David Yudkin]

What's odd is that if Ward played in say the 50s (when there was more smashmouth football) or say the 70s (when receiving totals were pretty barren), Ward would probably have a much stronger case. But since he played in an era of video game statistics, I think he suffers in comparison to some of the other players already mentioned by many in this thread. They will only induct a limited number of WR from this era, and IMO there are already several other players from his time frame more deserving than Ward. Ward may be a better all around player, but in the game that's played today that may not be a total positive when compared to the other high production receivers.

I amazes me the Yudkin and Chase think only stats get you in, I thought you two were more intelligent than that.

It's not so much that only stats get you in, but when a guy has stats that may not be up to par to others may not get you in. As has been discussed many times in many threads (haven't re-read this one so can't remember if this has been brought up in this one), only a very few players at a given position will be inducted that played at the same time. Looking at the WR already inducted, there are only 7 guys inducted that played even one game past 1980, with Monk and Irvin just added recently. That's a very low percentage of players from a pretty wide sweeping time frame.Given that not many guys will ever get in from the same era, here are the players from his era that Ward will be competing against t0 get in the HOF:Jerry RiceIssac BruceTim BrownMarvin HarrisonTerrell OwensCris CarterRandy MossTorry HoltJimmy SmithRod SmithChad JohnsonReggie WayneSteve SmithLarry Fitzgerald(Those last few obviously have a lot left to do to get considered.)Can Ward really make a compelling case over Rice, Brown, Harrison, Owens, Carter, or Moss? It's not that Ward isn't deserving of consideration, but there are just so many WR options that I don't see him currently outdistancing himself from the other top guys from his era.

 

[Irish]

The Jaguars passed for more yards in part because Jimmy Smith is a better receiver than Hines Ward.

Jimmy Smith might be a better statistical pass catcher than Hines Ward, but I will not agree that he is a better player at wide receiver. Furthermore, it's FAR more likely that the Jaguars passed for more yards because Jacksonville had Mark Brunell at QB while the Steelers had Kordell Stewart, Mike Tomczak, Kent Graham and Tommy Maddox at QB. The one year Maddox played over his head was the year the Steelers finished 7th in yardage.

I don't know what a statistical pass catcher is but he was a much better real life pass catcher.

Cute comment. Nice job addressing my counterpoint. Was Smith helped by spending his first five years with Brunell? Since you're such a numbers guy, I've prepared the following for you.Difference between Hines Ward and Jimmy Smith their first five years as starters, per gameSmith (1996-2000): 5.70 - 83.5 - 0.42Ward (1999-2003): 5.12 - 60.1 - 0.46Smith, per game, had 0.58 - 23.4 - (-0.04) numbers better than Ward.Difference between Hines Ward and Jimmy Smith in their second five seasons:Smith (2001-2005): 5.13 - 71.0 - 0.41Ward (2004-2008): 5.07 - 63.9 - 0.47Smith, per game had 0.06 - 7.1 - (-0.06) numbers better than Ward.Most of the statistical difference between Smith and Ward occurred in the first five years of their career as starters, coinciding with the QB discrepancy I mentioned previously.

Jimmy Smith was also 32 years old after his first 5 seasons as a starter, Ward was 27. Smith broke his leg before his career even started and then before he was recovered underwent an emergency appendectomy which led to a severe infection and was nearly fatal. As a street free agent he made the rounds until finally signing on with Jacksonville as a special teamer and working his way up to starter. Due to the health issues, he was 26 years old before he caught his first NFL pass yet still had over 12,000 yards and 850 catches. So not only was his career short by WR standards, but more than half his production years came after he was 30 years old. There are all kinds of intangibles.

Don't forget about Smith's love affair with the white powdery substance. He has that over Ward.

 

[Tau837]

I thought this was a thread about whether or not Hines Ward should be in the HOF, not a thread to compare Ward to Jimmy Smith. Jimmy Smith will not and should not be in the HOF, so comparing Ward to him really does not tell us anything relative to the point of the thread.

I think you should reconsider both points.Jimmy Smith should be in the HOF, and comparing contemporaries is a very important part of declaring if someone should be a HOFer.

I have considered Jimmy Smith. I know you have devised a ranking system that places him very high, and IMO that reveals a flaw with your system. I think enough others that played before, during, and after Smith's career are more deserving that he should not and will not make it. It follows from that opinion that comparing Ward to Smith is not particularly relevant to considering Ward's chances of making the HOF.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

I thought this was a thread about whether or not Hines Ward should be in the HOF, not a thread to compare Ward to Jimmy Smith. Jimmy Smith will not and should not be in the HOF, so comparing Ward to him really does not tell us anything relative to the point of the thread.

I think you should reconsider both points.Jimmy Smith should be in the HOF, and comparing contemporaries is a very important part of declaring if someone should be a HOFer.

I have considered Jimmy Smith. I know you have devised a ranking system that places him very high, and IMO that reveals a flaw with your system. I think enough others that played before, during, and after Smith's career are more deserving that he should not and will not make it. It follows from that opinion that comparing Ward to Smith is not particularly relevant to considering Ward's chances of making the HOF.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I thought this was a thread about whether or not Hines Ward should be in the HOF, not a thread to compare Ward to Jimmy Smith. Jimmy Smith will not and should not be in the HOF, so comparing Ward to him really does not tell us anything relative to the point of the thread.

I think you should reconsider both points.Jimmy Smith should be in the HOF, and comparing contemporaries is a very important part of declaring if someone should be a HOFer.

I have considered Jimmy Smith. I know you have devised a ranking system that places him very high, and IMO that reveals a flaw with your system. I think enough others that played before, during, and after Smith's career are more deserving that he should not and will not make it. It follows from that opinion that comparing Ward to Smith is not particularly relevant to considering Ward's chances of making the HOF.

So, what are you saying is, since you don't think Jimmy Smith is comparable to Ward, then no one should even be discussing it, even if they think otherwise?

 

[Chase Stuart]

When you consider that he played in the most pass happy era in NFL history, he really has virtually very little shot at the Hall of Fame.Stats matter, to pretend they don't is absurd. And that's got nothing to do with fantasy.

He will have enough stats to get in

What does this mean?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Steve Smith

Not to sidetrack too much, but I think Smith has already passed Ward. For five of the last six years he's been very good, and for two of those years he's been out of this world good. His '05 season is one of those HOF years. When you consider that he's played with some terrible QBs when Delhomme's been hurt, you realize how good his numbers really are. I don't think Smith is in yet, but barring injury or a unexpected dropoff in play, I think he'll be a lock by the time he retires.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I thought this was a thread about whether or not Hines Ward should be in the HOF, not a thread to compare Ward to Jimmy Smith. Jimmy Smith will not and should not be in the HOF, so comparing Ward to him really does not tell us anything relative to the point of the thread.

I think you should reconsider both points.Jimmy Smith should be in the HOF, and comparing contemporaries is a very important part of declaring if someone should be a HOFer.

I have considered Jimmy Smith. I know you have devised a ranking system that places him very high, and IMO that reveals a flaw with your system. I think enough others that played before, during, and after Smith's career are more deserving that he should not and will not make it. It follows from that opinion that comparing Ward to Smith is not particularly relevant to considering Ward's chances of making the HOF.

First off, if you view Smith as better than Ward, that would make Ward not a HOFer. So that's highly relevant. That said, you haven't explained why you don't think Smith is that good. So what's the reason?

 

[David Yudkin]

Steve Smith

Not to sidetrack too much, but I think Smith has already passed Ward. For five of the last six years he's been very good, and for two of those years he's been out of this world good. His '05 season is one of those HOF years. When you consider that he's played with some terrible QBs when Delhomme's been hurt, you realize how good his numbers really are. I don't think Smith is in yet, but barring injury or a unexpected dropoff in play, I think he'll be a lock by the time he retires.

Just another example of when it's all said and done I believe there will be so many other WR options for HOF consideration that I think Ward will really have a tough time getting in.

 

[timschochet]

Huge Steeler fan, and I love Hines Ward, but I don't think he belongs in the Hall. I also did not believe that Lynn Swann and John Stallworth, both of whom I also loved, belonged in the Hall either. The Hall of Fame should be for the elite, the very very best. I don't put Ward in that category.

Now, if he plays another 8-10 years at the same productive level (doubtful) then perhaps he would get the longevity consideration. But not now.

 

[Jason Wood]

Holt is the same age and only 69 receptions and 2 TDs ahead of Ward.

And 2,880 yards.

yep.IMO, Ward is a great/complete football player who would have excelled in any era on any team. I can't say the same for some of his peers that seem to have stronger cases for the HOF.

Real football needs to be separated from fantasy football in this discussion, I think fantasy/stat geeks know Ward by what they see in the scoring of their fantasy leagues, and Ward play cannot be judged by just stats alone. The guy may be the most complete FOOTBALL player I have watched over the years, and I've been watching the NFL since the Steelers won SB14.

I'm sorry but this "real football vs. fantasy football" is such a tired and insulting argument. The Shark Pool has, since its inception, had great discussions that run the gamut from pure fantasy to pure NFL. So many of us are able to differentiate between the two, and speak intelligently about either, that it's a straw man to suggest that because people disagree with you, they're somehow only focusing on the fantasy.Hall of Fame eligibility is a long-standing topic around here. As it rational analysis of the most common criteria that go into induction based on who HAS gotten in already and who HAS NOT.

If you want to have a conversation about what you think SHOULD matter for HOF induction, that's your right. But if you want to discuss whether Ward is likely to be considered based on the criteria that WILL be used, that's entirely another conversation.

He's never made an All Pro team, not one

He hasn't made a Pro Bowl team in five seasons

He's never led the league in receptions, yards or TDs in ONE season, much less many

When you consider that he played in the most pass happy era in NFL history, he really has virtually very little shot at the Hall of Fame.

Stats matter, to pretend they don't is absurd. And that's got nothing to do with fantasy.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Steve Smith

Not to sidetrack too much, but I think Smith has already passed Ward. For five of the last six years he's been very good, and for two of those years he's been out of this world good. His '05 season is one of those HOF years. When you consider that he's played with some terrible QBs when Delhomme's been hurt, you realize how good his numbers really are. I don't think Smith is in yet, but barring injury or a unexpected dropoff in play, I think he'll be a lock by the time he retires.

Just another example of when it's all said and done I believe there will be so many other WR options for HOF consideration that I think Ward will really have a tough time getting in.

The HOF has ended up creating a small gap between the historical and the modern player. There are 10 historical WRs in the Hall and then 15 from the 'since Berry' era because the Hall didn't accept any WR that started their career between 1949 and 1954 (with Billy Howton being the biggest snub). So of the 10 pre-modern players, none played after 1957 and all of the 15 modern players played the majority of their career after the landmark 1960 season.Here's the first year playing, last year playing and average year for the 15 WRs:

1955	1967	1961	  Raymond Berry1957	1968	1962.5	Tommy McDonald1958	1968	1963	  Bobby Mitchell1958	1973	1965.5	Don Maynard1962	1972	1967	  Lance Alworth1964	1977	1970.5	Paul Warfield1965	1978	1971.5	Fred Biletnikoff1966	1977	1971.5	Charley Taylor1969	1986	1977.5	Charlie Joiner1974	1982	1978	  Lynn Swann1974	1987	1980.5	John Stallworth1976	1989	1982.5	Steve Largent1978	1993	1985.5	James Lofton1980	1995	1987.5	Art Monk1988	1999	1993.5	Michael Irvin

There's another large gap there, which existed because of the lack of top WR talent in the '70s. If you exclude Swann and Charlie Joiner -- both of whom, IMO, neither deserved to make the HOF nor would have if the Hall induced some other '70s Wrs -- you can see that another chasm is created. Eight of the 13 WRs never played in the '80s. The other half played the majority of their careers after 1980. So in recent history, we've got Stallworth, Largent, Lofton, Monk and Irvin. That number will jump once you include the four recent guys. Here's a new look:

1974	1987	1980.5	John Stallworth1976	1989	1982.5	Steve Largent1978	1993	1985.5	James Lofton1980	1995	1987.5	Art Monk1988	1999	1993.5	Michael Irvin1985	2004	1994.5	Jerry Rice1996	2009	2002.5	Marvin Harrison1996	2010	2003	  Terrell Owens1998	2011	2004.5	Randy Moss

That creates another pretty large gap and I'm not sure it's warranted. Only 2 WR for most of the '90s? Throwing Tim Brown and Cris Carter in will solve that, along with Bruce and/or Smith. WRs are more valuable now than ever before -- I see no reason for the HOF not to include more of them. To get to Ward might be tough, because you'll have to have him pass Rod Smith, Steve Smith and Torry Holt, along with maybe some of the four guys before him. And yes, the Calvin/Fitz/Boldin trio might cause him even more problems. But I do think the HOF is in for a large increase in WRs in the next decade.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Holt is the same age and only 69 receptions and 2 TDs ahead of Ward.

And 2,880 yards.

yep.IMO, Ward is a great/complete football player who would have excelled in any era on any team. I can't say the same for some of his peers that seem to have stronger cases for the HOF.

Real football needs to be separated from fantasy football in this discussion, I think fantasy/stat geeks know Ward by what they see in the scoring of their fantasy leagues, and Ward play cannot be judged by just stats alone. The guy may be the most complete FOOTBALL player I have watched over the years, and I've been watching the NFL since the Steelers won SB14.

I'm sorry but this "real football vs. fantasy football" is such a tired and insulting argument. The Shark Pool has, since its inception, had great discussions that run the gamut from pure fantasy to pure NFL. So many of us are able to differentiate between the two, and speak intelligently about either, that it's a straw man to suggest that because people disagree with you, they're somehow only focusing on the fantasy.Hall of Fame eligibility is a long-standing topic around here. As it rational analysis of the most common criteria that go into induction based on who HAS gotten in already and who HAS NOT.

If you want to have a conversation about what you think SHOULD matter for HOF induction, that's your right. But if you want to discuss whether Ward is likely to be considered based on the criteria that WILL be used, that's entirely another conversation.

He's never made an All Pro team, not one

He hasn't made a Pro Bowl team in five seasons

He's never led the league in receptions, yards or TDs in ONE season, much less many

When you consider that he played in the most pass happy era in NFL history, he really has virtually very little shot at the Hall of Fame.

Stats matter, to pretend they don't is absurd. And that's got nothing to do with fantasy.

From '02 to '05, Ward was a great WR. His best year was '02 which was a great season. He was a good WR in '01, and '06-'08. If he can continue with two more "good" seasons he'll be looking a bit better, once you consider his blocking and his post-season success. I think you're underrating Ward's stats a bit, especially his big '02 season. In '04 and '05 his team didn't pass the ball that often but he was having great seasons on teams that threw well under 400 times. He's definitely on the outside looking in but his stats are not bad.

 

[Tau837]

I thought this was a thread about whether or not Hines Ward should be in the HOF, not a thread to compare Ward to Jimmy Smith. Jimmy Smith will not and should not be in the HOF, so comparing Ward to him really does not tell us anything relative to the point of the thread.

I think you should reconsider both points.Jimmy Smith should be in the HOF, and comparing contemporaries is a very important part of declaring if someone should be a HOFer.

I have considered Jimmy Smith. I know you have devised a ranking system that places him very high, and IMO that reveals a flaw with your system. I think enough others that played before, during, and after Smith's career are more deserving that he should not and will not make it. It follows from that opinion that comparing Ward to Smith is not particularly relevant to considering Ward's chances of making the HOF.

So, what are you saying is, since you don't think Jimmy Smith is comparable to Ward, then no one should even be discussing it, even if they think otherwise?

No. I was saying the following. IMO Jimmy Smith is not a HOFer. So to argue that Ward is better than Jimmy Smith was is not addressing whether or not Ward himself is a worthy HOFer, since being better than Smith does not equate to being a HOFer. However, as Chase pointed out later, if you agree Smith is not a HOFer, and you conclude Smith is better than Ward, then you must conclude Ward is also not a HOFer. So I grudgingly admit that there is some relevance there.

 

[Tau837]

I thought this was a thread about whether or not Hines Ward should be in the HOF, not a thread to compare Ward to Jimmy Smith. Jimmy Smith will not and should not be in the HOF, so comparing Ward to him really does not tell us anything relative to the point of the thread.

I think you should reconsider both points.Jimmy Smith should be in the HOF, and comparing contemporaries is a very important part of declaring if someone should be a HOFer.

I have considered Jimmy Smith. I know you have devised a ranking system that places him very high, and IMO that reveals a flaw with your system. I think enough others that played before, during, and after Smith's career are more deserving that he should not and will not make it. It follows from that opinion that comparing Ward to Smith is not particularly relevant to considering Ward's chances of making the HOF.

First off, if you view Smith as better than Ward, that would make Ward not a HOFer. So that's highly relevant. That said, you haven't explained why you don't think Smith is that good. So what's the reason?

OK, you are right on the first point. I was looking at it the other way, from the perspective of those arguing Ward was better than Smith.I indicated my reason on Smith in the bolded statement above.

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

I thought this was a thread about whether or not Hines Ward should be in the HOF, not a thread to compare Ward to Jimmy Smith. Jimmy Smith will not and should not be in the HOF, so comparing Ward to him really does not tell us anything relative to the point of the thread.

I think you should reconsider both points.Jimmy Smith should be in the HOF, and comparing contemporaries is a very important part of declaring if someone should be a HOFer.

I have considered Jimmy Smith. I know you have devised a ranking system that places him very high, and IMO that reveals a flaw with your system. I think enough others that played before, during, and after Smith's career are more deserving that he should not and will not make it. It follows from that opinion that comparing Ward to Smith is not particularly relevant to considering Ward's chances of making the HOF.

So, what are you saying is, since you don't think Jimmy Smith is comparable to Ward, then no one should even be discussing it, even if they think otherwise?

No. I was saying the following. IMO Jimmy Smith is not a HOFer. So to argue that Ward is better than Jimmy Smith was is not addressing whether or not Ward himself is a worthy HOFer, since being better than Smith does not equate to being a HOFer. However, as Chase pointed out later, if you agree Smith is not a HOFer, and you conclude Smith is better than Ward, then you must conclude Ward is also not a HOFer. So I grudgingly admit that there is some relevance there.

Got it, and I agree. IMO neither Smith or Ward are HOFers.

 

[Tau837]

Posts from the 2006 thread that was linked earlier in the thread:

a player typically has to do one or more of the following to make the HOF:1. Be a truly dominant player at his position (at least All Pro caliber) for a number of years (see Ray Lewis).2. Accumulate elite career totals (see Tim Brown, Jerome Bettis).3. Achieve a rare level of postseason success (see Tom Brady).At this time, it is very unlikely that either 1 or 2 will be the case for Ward. And while he has a start on 3, he has a lot more work to do there if that is to carry his case.

19 WRs have been elected to the HOF since 1968. That is 1 WR elected every 2.1 years.I expect Carter, Rice, and Brown to make it within the next 3-4 years, in line with or slightly ahead of the pattern to date.The next 5 year window after that will see guys like Bruce, Jimmy Smith, Rod Smith, and McCardell become eligible... a bit of a dry spell between the Carter-Rice-Brown run and the Harrison-Moss-Owens-Holt run to come. That may help Bruce to make it, but I don't see the others getting in. Andre Reed could make it during that span.Then the next 5 years will see Harrison, Owens, Moss, and likely Holt make it. Presumably this is roughly the window when Ward will first be eligible... but IMO he won't compare favorably with those others, and this will be the tail end of a run of 10-15 years that will have seen 9+ WRs other than Ward elected (Irvin, Monk, Carter, Rice, Brown, Harrison, Owens, Moss, Holt, maybe Bruce, maybe Reed).Plus, we will have a new elite group known to voters who will follow some years later - hard to say who they will be (Boldin, Fitz, et al), but the voters will be watching them wind down their careers.I think the culmination of all of this will be too much for Ward. People will be saying that the committee needs to focus on some other underrepresented positions, and rightfully so.

Chase, this earlier post addresses my rationale for both Ward and Smith. It focused on Ward but also applies to Smith IMO.

 

[CalBear]

I think, especially if Ward plays and the Steelers win Sunday, he'll get in. At the very least he'll get in via the Art Monk rule, where enough people say he should be in over the years that he eventually makes it. Art Monk shouldn't have made it, but he did.

Jimmy Smith won't have a whole lot of cheerleaders.

 

[Tau837]

These are the players who have been selected as AP 1st Team All Pros during Ward's careeravid BostonCris CarterLarry FitzgeraldAntonio FreemanMarvin HarrisonTorry HoltAndre JohnsonChad JohnsonRandy MossMuhsin MuhammadTerrell OwensSteve SmithFor all those who feel Ward's play has been good enough for him to merit HOF induction, why hasn't it been good enough to earn at least one 1st Team All Pro selection?

No one who is advocating Ward for the HOF has responded to this. There are two issues here IMO.1. One could argue that this shows Ward was never one of the very best WRs in the league. And, while he played at the same time as some other all time great WRs, the fact that 12 guys made it at least once shows that there was still opportunity.A related question: How many WRs are in the HOF that never made 1st team All Pro even once? I assume that number is very small, and presumably there was something compelling about those individuals. Does Ward have an equally compelling case? Heck, we could extend the question to all positions, not just WR.2. Most of those arguing for Ward are saying that it isn't a stat driven argument for him, that he makes up for having lower stats with intangibles, blocking, etc. These posters are essentially saying that HOF voters will take those things into account when they consider his HOF resume and view them positively enough that they overcome his relatively low numbers. This begs the question, then why haven't All Pro voters done the same thing?

 

[Chase Stuart]

These are the players who have been selected as AP 1st Team All Pros during Ward's careeravid BostonCris CarterLarry FitzgeraldAntonio FreemanMarvin HarrisonTorry HoltAndre JohnsonChad JohnsonRandy MossMuhsin MuhammadTerrell OwensSteve SmithFor all those who feel Ward's play has been good enough for him to merit HOF induction, why hasn't it been good enough to earn at least one 1st Team All Pro selection?

No one who is advocating Ward for the HOF has responded to this. There are two issues here IMO.1. One could argue that this shows Ward was never one of the very best WRs in the league. And, while he played at the same time as some other all time great WRs, the fact that 12 guys made it at least once shows that there was still opportunity.A related question: How many WRs are in the HOF that never made 1st team All Pro even once? I assume that number is very small, and presumably there was something compelling about those individuals. Does Ward have an equally compelling case? Heck, we could extend the question to all positions, not just WR.2. Most of those arguing for Ward are saying that it isn't a stat driven argument for him, that he makes up for having lower stats with intangibles, blocking, etc. These posters are essentitatively low numbers. This begs the question, then why haven't All Pro voters done the same thing?

:( That said, I do think All Pros are overrated, but more importantly, I think we'll see an influx of WRs in the HOF soon.

 

[David Yudkin]

A related question: How many WRs are in the HOF that never made 1st team All Pro even once?

FIRST TEAM ALL-PRO SELECTIONS OF CURRENT HALL OF FAME WRon Hutson 8Lance Alworth 6 Pete Pihos 5 Bill Hewitt 4Ray Flaherty 3Raymond Berry 3 Paul Warfield 2Elroy (Crazylegs) Hirsch 2 Fred Biletnikoff 2 Tom Fears 1 Michael Irvin 1 Charlie Joiner 1 Steve Largent 1 James Lofton 1Don Maynard 1 Bobby Mitchell 1 Art Monk 1 John Stallworth 1Lynn Swann 1Charley Taylor 1Wayne Millner 0Morris (Red) Badgro 0Guy Chamberlin 0Dante Lavelli 0Tommy McDonald 0

 

[Tau837]

A related question: How many WRs are in the HOF that never made 1st team All Pro even once?

FIRST TEAM ALL-PRO SELECTIONS OF CURRENT HALL OF FAME WRon Hutson 8Lance Alworth 6 Pete Pihos 5 Bill Hewitt 4Ray Flaherty 3Raymond Berry 3 Paul Warfield 2Elroy (Crazylegs) Hirsch 2 Fred Biletnikoff 2 Tom Fears 1 Michael Irvin 1 Charlie Joiner 1 Steve Largent 1 James Lofton 1Don Maynard 1 Bobby Mitchell 1 Art Monk 1 John Stallworth 1Lynn Swann 1Charley Taylor 1Wayne Millner 0Morris (Red) Badgro 0Guy Chamberlin 0Dante Lavelli 0Tommy McDonald 0

Thanks, David.The AP All Pro teams began at some point in the 1940s, so Badgro, Chamberlin, and Millner could not have been All Pros.Lavelli played his first 4 seasons in the AAFC, and was All AAFC 2 times. He also played in 6 NFL championship games, and performed well.McDonald ranked sixth all-time in receptions (495), fourth in yards receiving (8,410) and second in touchdown catches (84) when he retired following the 1968 season. He also caught a TD in the 1960 NFL championship game that his Eagles team won 17-13.

 

[David Yudkin]

A related question: How many WRs are in the HOF that never made 1st team All Pro even once?

FIRST TEAM ALL-PRO SELECTIONS OF CURRENT HALL OF FAME WRon Hutson 8Lance Alworth 6 Pete Pihos 5 Bill Hewitt 4Ray Flaherty 3Raymond Berry 3 Paul Warfield 2Elroy (Crazylegs) Hirsch 2 Fred Biletnikoff 2 Tom Fears 1 Michael Irvin 1 Charlie Joiner 1 Steve Largent 1 James Lofton 1Don Maynard 1 Bobby Mitchell 1 Art Monk 1 John Stallworth 1Lynn Swann 1Charley Taylor 1Wayne Millner 0Morris (Red) Badgro 0Guy Chamberlin 0Dante Lavelli 0Tommy McDonald 0

Thanks, David.The AP All Pro teams began at some point in the 1940s, so Badgro, Chamberlin, and Millner could not have been All Pros.Lavelli played his first 4 seasons in the AAFC, and was All AAFC 2 times. He also played in 6 NFL championship games, and performed well.McDonald ranked sixth all-time in receptions (495), fourth in yards receiving (8,410) and second in touchdown catches (84) when he retired following the 1968 season. He also caught a TD in the 1960 NFL championship game that his Eagles team won 17-13.

FYI - Info taken from PFR and Doug lists UPI selections from the 30s and counts them as All Pro selections. So 1st Team All Pro at PFR = UPI 1930-1939 or AP 1940-Present.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Tommy McDonald was really good and is a deserving HOFer. He probably should have been named first team all pro in '61, and could have been named first team in any of the years from '59 to '62 and '65.

 

[Wadsworth]

I thought this was a thread about whether or not Hines Ward should be in the HOF, not a thread to compare Ward to Jimmy Smith. Jimmy Smith will not and should not be in the HOF, so comparing Ward to him really does not tell us anything relative to the point of the thread.

I think you should reconsider both points.Jimmy Smith should be in the HOF, and comparing contemporaries is a very important part of declaring if someone should be a HOFer.

I have considered Jimmy Smith. I know you have devised a ranking system that places him very high, and IMO that reveals a flaw with your system. I think enough others that played before, during, and after Smith's career are more deserving that he should not and will not make it. It follows from that opinion that comparing Ward to Smith is not particularly relevant to considering Ward's chances of making the HOF.

So, what are you saying is, since you don't think Jimmy Smith is comparable to Ward, then no one should even be discussing it, even if they think otherwise?

No. I was saying the following. IMO Jimmy Smith is not a HOFer. So to argue that Ward is better than Jimmy Smith was is not addressing whether or not Ward himself is a worthy HOFer, since being better than Smith does not equate to being a HOFer. However, as Chase pointed out later, if you agree Smith is not a HOFer, and you conclude Smith is better than Ward, then you must conclude Ward is also not a HOFer. So I grudgingly admit that there is some relevance there.

Which is basically what I've been arguing. In the 6th post in this thread I said.

Ward should get in right after Jimmy Smith, which is never.

 

[Wadsworth]

I think, especially if Ward plays and the Steelers win Sunday, he'll get in. At the very least he'll get in via the Art Monk rule, where enough people say he should be in over the years that he eventually makes it. Art Monk shouldn't have made it, but he did.Jimmy Smith won't have a whole lot of cheerleaders.

This is likely correct. It's a shame, but it does seem to be the way these things work.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Bob Hayes gets in. Good job, HOF

 

[Jason Wood]

These are the players who have been selected as AP 1st Team All Pros during Ward's careeravid BostonCris CarterLarry FitzgeraldAntonio FreemanMarvin HarrisonTorry HoltAndre JohnsonChad JohnsonRandy MossMuhsin MuhammadTerrell OwensSteve SmithFor all those who feel Ward's play has been good enough for him to merit HOF induction, why hasn't it been good enough to earn at least one 1st Team All Pro selection?

No one who is advocating Ward for the HOF has responded to this. There are two issues here IMO.1. One could argue that this shows Ward was never one of the very best WRs in the league. And, while he played at the same time as some other all time great WRs, the fact that 12 guys made it at least once shows that there was still opportunity.A related question: How many WRs are in the HOF that never made 1st team All Pro even once? I assume that number is very small, and presumably there was something compelling about those individuals. Does Ward have an equally compelling case? Heck, we could extend the question to all positions, not just WR.2. Most of those arguing for Ward are saying that it isn't a stat driven argument for him, that he makes up for having lower stats with intangibles, blocking, etc. These posters are essentitatively low numbers. This begs the question, then why haven't All Pro voters done the same thing?

That said, I do think All Pros are overrated, but more importantly, I think we'll see an influx of WRs in the HOF soon.

It's not about whether you or I think any factor is overrated or not; it's what factors have historically mattered to the selection committee. And multiple All Pro appearances is, along with relative stats accumulation and Super Bowl rings, a very big deal.

 

[moderated]

I thought this was a fishing trip and then saw a lot of people in favor of Ward being in the HOF.

NO WAY he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. He has never been a dominant WR at any point in his career.

the hall of average players maybe, but if he even gets one vote for the HOF it's too many.

 

[Judge Smails]

Tough receiver. Good blocker. Not a Hall of Famer.

 

[The Jerk]

I thought this was a fishing trip and then saw a lot of people in favor of Ward being in the HOF.NO WAY he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. He has never been a dominant WR at any point in his career.the hall of average players maybe, but if he even gets one vote for the HOF it's too many.

You don't suppose even one voter might find a player who ranks in the top 10 all-time for receptions, top 15 all-time for receiving TDs, and top 20 all-time for receiving yards to be worthy of consideration? That's where Hines Ward will be if he plays just two more seasons with career average productivity. Currently, Ward ranks 22nd, 28th, and 34th respectively in those categories.I don't believe Ward will be in the HoF, nor do I think he should be in the HoF, but the best fishing effort in this thread is your comment that Ward is an average player. What does it take to be above average in your world, given that in 2002-2003 Ward had 207 receptions, 2492 yards and 22 TDs?

 

[Jason Wood]

I thought this was a fishing trip and then saw a lot of people in favor of Ward being in the HOF.NO WAY he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. He has never been a dominant WR at any point in his career.the hall of average players maybe, but if he even gets one vote for the HOF it's too many.

You don't suppose even one voter might find a player who ranks in the top 10 all-time for receptions, top 15 all-time for receiving TDs, and top 20 all-time for receiving yards to be worthy of consideration? That's where Hines Ward will be if he plays just two more seasons with career average productivity. Currently, Ward ranks 22nd, 28th, and 34th respectively in those categories.I don't believe Ward will be in the HoF, nor do I think he should be in the HoF, but the best fishing effort in this thread is your comment that Ward is an average player. What does it take to be above average in your world, given that in 2002-2003 Ward had 207 receptions, 2492 yards and 22 TDs?

Given how many of his contemporaries will finish higher than him in those very same categories? No, I don't think he'll get serious consideration. Perhaps if the Steelers win another ring or two before he calls it quits, that will give him a boost. But without that, I don't think he'll ever get so far as a HOF Semifinalist. But he'd be right near the top of the Hall of Very Good

 

[The Jerk]

Given how many of his contemporaries will finish higher than him in those very same categories? No, I don't think he'll get serious consideration. Perhaps if the Steelers win another ring or two before he calls it quits, that will give him a boost. But without that, I don't think he'll ever get so far as a HOF Semifinalist. But he'd be right near the top of the Hall of Very Good

Ward would probably need to play another five seasons at his current pace to get in position to maintain top 20 rankings in all three categories for several years after retirement. I don't see that happening, but another possibility that could help Ward would be a decline or at least leveling off of the passing game in the NFL. I don't see that happening, either, but it bears noting that only SD, INDY, PHIL and ARIZ were prolific passing offenses out of the 12 playoff teams this year. Most likely this was an anomaly instead of the start of a trend, but it's still noteworthy.

 

[Jous]

As of now, no. If he wins another SuperBowl and has at least 3 more good seasons, then yes.