Hines Ward - 1st ballot Hall of Famer? (2 Viewers)

[Frenchy Fuqua]

As I posted earlier, since 1968 17 WRs have been inducted into the HOF. That is 1 WR inducted per 2.2 years. 1 per 2 years is a reasonable rate to assume going forward, and accounts for a slight increase for WRs.I believe that Rice, Brown, Carter, Irvin, Reed, Monk, and Harrison will all get in within the next 12 years or so, which would reflect this rate. If Ward plays 7 more seasons, to age 36 or so, he would become eligible around that time. Presumably, Owens and Moss would also be eligible or would become eligible shortly thereafter.So to answer the direct thread question, I think this makes it extremely unlikely he gets in first ballot. And the longer he waits, the more other WRs will become eligible behind him. We cannot predict which of them (Steve Smith, Chad Johnson, Fitzgerald, Boldin, etc.) may have stronger cases than Ward.This is exactly why being 5th best over a relatively short stretch for a HOF caliber career doesn't carry a lot of weight. Generations overlap, and the 5 year wait for eligibility allows others to make a player's accomplishments look less compelling in retrospect.And in addition to other WRs, you also have to consider that he competes against all other positions. See the HOF schedule thread for an example of a large number of players who will be under consideration during the next 10 years or so to get a feel for how competitive it is.All these things are why 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.

Posted this 5 years ago today, and it still looks pretty accurate to me.

Except that he has hit your 3rd criteria. In 17 career postseason games, Hines Ward is:-2nd in postseason receptions with 88 (despite playing four fewer games than Andre Reed)-3rd in postseason TD catches with 10-4th in postseason receiving yards with 1,245-Super Bowl MVP-2x SB ChampionThrow in...-3rd longest reception streak (186)-8th all-time receptions-Will finish career top 15-20 in receiving yards and TD.His per game regular season and postseason numbers are better than Andre Reed's across the board. Hines obviously isn't a 1st ballot HOFer but there's no reason to think he can't follow the same path of other postseason greats like Swann, Stallworth, Biletnikoff and Irvin.

 

[Tau837]

As I posted earlier, since 1968 17 WRs have been inducted into the HOF. That is 1 WR inducted per 2.2 years. 1 per 2 years is a reasonable rate to assume going forward, and accounts for a slight increase for WRs.I believe that Rice, Brown, Carter, Irvin, Reed, Monk, and Harrison will all get in within the next 12 years or so, which would reflect this rate. If Ward plays 7 more seasons, to age 36 or so, he would become eligible around that time. Presumably, Owens and Moss would also be eligible or would become eligible shortly thereafter.So to answer the direct thread question, I think this makes it extremely unlikely he gets in first ballot. And the longer he waits, the more other WRs will become eligible behind him. We cannot predict which of them (Steve Smith, Chad Johnson, Fitzgerald, Boldin, etc.) may have stronger cases than Ward.This is exactly why being 5th best over a relatively short stretch for a HOF caliber career doesn't carry a lot of weight. Generations overlap, and the 5 year wait for eligibility allows others to make a player's accomplishments look less compelling in retrospect.And in addition to other WRs, you also have to consider that he competes against all other positions. See the HOF schedule thread for an example of a large number of players who will be under consideration during the next 10 years or so to get a feel for how competitive it is.All these things are why 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.

Posted this 5 years ago today, and it still looks pretty accurate to me.

Except that he has hit your 3rd criteria.-2nd in postseason receptions (despite playing four fewer games than Andre Reed)-Top 5 in postseason receiving yards and TD.-Super Bowl MVP-2x SB ChampionThrow in...-3rd longest reception streak (186)-8th all-time receptions-Will finish career top 15-20 in receiving yards and TD.His per game regular season and postseason numbers are better than Andre Reed's across the board. Hines obviously isn't a 1st ballot HOFer but there's no reason to think he can't follow the same path of other postseason greats like Swann, Stallworth, Biletnikoff and Irvin.

I disagree. Lynn Swann is an example of a WR who made the HOF largely because of postseason play and success. He was on 4 Super Bowl winners and had multiple signature moments in those Super Bowl wins.I cited Tom Brady originally, in part because he already had 3 rings and 2 Super Bowl MVPs. That is a rare level of postseason success.Ward has been in the playoffs just what he has been throughout his career in the regular season... a very good player. Everything you cite above for his postseason accomplishments certainly helps his case, but it's not enough to put him over the top IMO.Comparing him to Reed on a per game basis is comparing players from different eras and isn't fully valid IMO. It also isn't valid because it includes Reed's final seasons as he faded, but Ward hasn't reached that point yet. Comparing them through the same age, Reed averaged more yards and TDs per game, although it's very close. More importantly, when Reed retired, IIRC he was top 5 in receptions, receiving yards, and receiving TDs. Ward will not come close to matching that.IMO Irvin was clearly a bubble HOF candidate, and I probably would not have voted him in. But he is clearly quite a bit more deserving than Ward. I think Swann and Stallworth are among the weakest players in the HOF, but they had 4 rings going for them. Ward doesn't have that.So for the most part, I think you have just made a number of apples and oranges comparisons here.

 

[duaneok66]

The thread could be easily summed up by taking a look at the two sides.The vast majority of the pro-Ward HOF people are Steeler fans. Nearly everyone on the "not" side isn't.Time to take off the blinders when that's the case - or at least acknowledge that you might not be seeing things clearly.

post of the thread . . .

 

[RustyFA2]

He will not be seriously considered. He is an above average WR in his time. But there are 10 guys in front of him that won't get in either.

 

[duaneok66]

Here are some other potentially HOF worthy receivers whose careers overlapped with Ward's . . .Marvin HarrisonCris CarterTim BrownTerrell OwensRandy MossIsaac BruceAndre ReedTorry HoltDerrick MasonJimmy SmithRod SmithDerrick MasonReggie WayneAndre JohnsonChad JohnsonLarry FitzgeraldAnquan BoldinSteve SmithBrandon MarshallCalvin JohnsonSure, there are some guys there that are more than likely not Hall worthy (the 3 Smiths, Ochocinco, and Mason) and the other guys that are still playing have a long way to go.But how many guys that played at roughly the same time (or close to it) are the voters realistically gong to induct? I just listed 20 guys that certainly are at least in the discussion with Ward. From that list of guys that played in the past 10 years (or other recent players that I may have missed), for the Ward supporters, please list and rank the guys you feel are more deserving of HOF induction than Ward. Or, if that is too complicated, list all the guys you would have inducted along with Ward.I only brought this up as WR has generally been one of the hardest positions to get into the HOF. IIRC, there are 20-22 players who played WR/FL/E currently enshrined in the HOF.

I will take a stab at it and only discuss players on that list that are done . . .I think that Harrison, Moss, TO and Bruce are locks to get in . . . I think the one of the criteria is that the guy has to be a the top (or very near the top) at his position for a few years at least. All four of these guys fit the bill . . .

 

[cvnpoka]

id say holt has a better chance than bruce. he was actually near the top of his position for a decent stretch, but i dont remember bruce regarded as such.

 

[infantsam]

I think the only reason you would put him in is if you think he redefined the position w/ his blocking skills. It's borderline - but probably not quite enough. I would add that his receiving totals are pretty good for being on Pittsburgh.

Perhaps had he tossed a few more TD's back before ARE came to town that would have tipped him over.

Career overachiever - tough as nails - even as he 'loses a step' he'll be hard to replace.

 

[Clarence the barber]

id say holt has a better chance than bruce. he was actually near the top of his position for a decent stretch, but i dont remember bruce regarded as such.

At the inception of the GSOT, Bruce was their best WR and one of the best in the game (to my recollection). Plus he had a some monster seasons in the mid 90s.

 

[Sidewinder16]

He will not be seriously considered.

This could not be further from the truth.

 

[Tau837]

id say holt has a better chance than bruce. he was actually near the top of his position for a decent stretch, but i dont remember bruce regarded as such.

At the inception of the GSOT, Bruce was their best WR and one of the best in the game (to my recollection). Plus he had a some monster seasons in the mid 90s.

IMO Holt is more deserving than Bruce. Consider:1st team All Pro selections: Holt 1, Bruce 0Pro Bowl selections: Holt 7, Bruce 4Seasons in top 10 in receptions: Holt 5, Bruce 2Seasons in top 10 in receiving yards: Holt 8, Bruce 4Seasons in top 10 in receiving TDs: Holt 4, Bruce 2The only reason Bruce is ranked higher on the receiving lists is that he played 50 more games. That said, I do think it's possible that Bruce's ranks on those lists will get him serious HOF consideration, perhaps more than Holt.

 

[Clarence the barber]

id say holt has a better chance than bruce. he was actually near the top of his position for a decent stretch, but i dont remember bruce regarded as such.

At the inception of the GSOT, Bruce was their best WR and one of the best in the game (to my recollection). Plus he had a some monster seasons in the mid 90s.

IMO Holt is more deserving than Bruce. Consider:1st team All Pro selections: Holt 1, Bruce 0Pro Bowl selections: Holt 7, Bruce 4Seasons in top 10 in receptions: Holt 5, Bruce 2Seasons in top 10 in receiving yards: Holt 8, Bruce 4Seasons in top 10 in receiving TDs: Holt 4, Bruce 2The only reason Bruce is ranked higher on the receiving lists is that he played 50 more games. That said, I do think it's possible that Bruce's ranks on those lists will get him serious HOF consideration, perhaps more than Holt.

Yeah, Holt IMO is more impressive too. I think they have an equal chance to get in because they are both definitely in IMO. 100% = 100%.

 

[David Yudkin]

id say holt has a better chance than bruce. he was actually near the top of his position for a decent stretch, but i dont remember bruce regarded as such.

At the inception of the GSOT, Bruce was their best WR and one of the best in the game (to my recollection). Plus he had a some monster seasons in the mid 90s.

IMO Holt is more deserving than Bruce. Consider:1st team All Pro selections: Holt 1, Bruce 0Pro Bowl selections: Holt 7, Bruce 4Seasons in top 10 in receptions: Holt 5, Bruce 2Seasons in top 10 in receiving yards: Holt 8, Bruce 4Seasons in top 10 in receiving TDs: Holt 4, Bruce 2The only reason Bruce is ranked higher on the receiving lists is that he played 50 more games. That said, I do think it's possible that Bruce's ranks on those lists will get him serious HOF consideration, perhaps more than Holt.

Yeah, Holt IMO is more impressive too. I think they have an equal chance to get in because they are both definitely in IMO. 100% = 100%.

See my list above and tell me which guys are going to make the HOF. No one has done this to include all the players (someone did it for retired players only).The point still being, is the HOF going to take a dozen guys that all played in close proximity of each other or at the same time?

 

[The Berry Man]

He will not be seriously considered.

This could not be further from the truth.

Suggesting he's a first ballot HOFer is further from the truth.

 

[duaneok66]

id say holt has a better chance than bruce. he was actually near the top of his position for a decent stretch, but i dont remember bruce regarded as such.

At the inception of the GSOT, Bruce was their best WR and one of the best in the game (to my recollection). Plus he had a some monster seasons in the mid 90s.

that's how I remember it - meanwhile I don't think that Holt was ever considered better than his peers - hence the reason why IMO Bruce is higher in the pecking order . . .

 

[Sidewinder16]

He will not be seriously considered.

This could not be further from the truth.

Suggesting he's a first ballot HOFer is further from the truth.

I don't know which one is actually further from the truth, but both are certainly pie-in-the-sky pipe dreams.

 

[RustyFA2]

He will not be seriously considered.

This could not be further from the truth.

Suggesting he's a first ballot HOFer is further from the truth.

I don't know which one is actually further from the truth, but both are certainly pie-in-the-sky pipe dreams.

I just do not understand why anyone thinks he is a HOFer. His career has not justified it. Very good player and extremely valuable to his team but not a serious canidate for the best of the best. He was not among te best of the best at his position during his time. 3 seasons over 10 TDs, 1 season over 1168 yards, 4 seasons over 82 catches. Good numbers but HOF? Only 6 of 13 seasons over 1000 yards. Just not HOF numbers.

 

[David Yudkin]

I just do not understand why anyone thinks he is a HOFer. His career has not justified it. Very good player and extremely valuable to his team but not a serious canidate for the best of the best. He was not among te best of the best at his position during his time. 3 seasons over 10 TDs, 1 season over 1168 yards, 4 seasons over 82 catches. Good numbers but HOF? Only 6 of 13 seasons over 1000 yards. Just not HOF numbers.

To play devil's advocate, Andre Reed looks like he will make it in in the next year or to. He had only 4 seasons with 1,000+ yards in 16 seasons played. He also had exactly 10 TD in a season one time.He ranked in the Top 5 in receptions twice, receving yards twice, and receiving TD once. And he never won a SB or was an All Pro. Yet it looks like he's going to make it in.

 

[Dought Man]

Has any team ever gone into a game saying, "Man, we have to find a way to stop Hines Ward. If we do that... we will give ourselves a great chance to beat this team"

Has that ever happened once in his career? Has he ever been double teamed in his life? You never see safeties cheating to his side.

A nice player with a nice career. Not a HOF'er by any stretch. You need to dominate at your position for at least a few years to have a chance. Hines is a compiler...nothing more.

 

[Tau837]

Here are some other potentially HOF worthy receivers whose careers overlapped with Ward's . . .Marvin HarrisonCris CarterTim BrownTerrell OwensRandy MossIsaac BruceAndre ReedTorry HoltDerrick MasonJimmy SmithRod SmithDerrick MasonReggie WayneAndre JohnsonChad JohnsonLarry FitzgeraldAnquan BoldinSteve SmithBrandon MarshallCalvin JohnsonSure, there are some guys there that are more than likely not Hall worthy (the 3 Smiths, Ochocinco, and Mason) and the other guys that are still playing have a long way to go.But how many guys that played at roughly the same time (or close to it) are the voters realistically gong to induct? I just listed 20 guys that certainly are at least in the discussion with Ward. From that list of guys that played in the past 10 years (or other recent players that I may have missed), for the Ward supporters, please list and rank the guys you feel are more deserving of HOF induction than Ward. Or, if that is too complicated, list all the guys you would have inducted along with Ward.I only brought this up as WR has generally been one of the hardest positions to get into the HOF. IIRC, there are 20-22 players who played WR/FL/E currently enshrined in the HOF.

I disagree that WR is one of the hardest positions to get in. Consider the number of players per position in the modern era:RB/HB/FB - 28QB - 23LB - 22 (counting Bednarik as LB, not C, in this list)WR - 21OT - 16DT - 14DE - 14CB - 14G - 12TE - 8S - 8C - 6MG - 1PK - 1Only 3 positions are above WR for number of modern era inductees. And LB should arguably be higher, given there are more starters at LB than WR. On top of that, there are 3 WRs (Reed, Carter, Brown) who seem likely to get in within the next few years, and no LBs that I can think of right now, so WRs are set to move ahead in number in the near future. Heck, they could move ahead of QB for a brief period, if all 3 of those guys make it before Favre and Warner become eligible.As for who will get in off your list, as of today, I think these guys will all definitely get in:Marvin HarrisonCris CarterTim BrownTerrell OwensRandy MossAndre ReedI personally wouldn't necessarily vote Reed in, but the number of times he has been a finalist makes it inevitable for him.I think these guys have a good chance, and will probably make it:Isaac BruceTorry HoltI think these guys will not make it:Hines Ward - added to your listDerrick MasonJimmy SmithRod SmithReggie WayneAndre JohnsonChad JohnsonAnquan BoldinSteve SmithI think the jury is out on these guys:Larry FitzgeraldBrandon MarshallCalvin JohnsonOn those three, I think Marshall is unlikely, and I think Fitz and Calvin are actually likely, provided they stay reasonably healthy and play several more years apiece... but it's really too early to tell.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

I just do not understand why anyone thinks he is a HOFer. His career has not justified it. Very good player and extremely valuable to his team but not a serious canidate for the best of the best. He was not among te best of the best at his position during his time. 3 seasons over 10 TDs, 1 season over 1168 yards, 4 seasons over 82 catches. Good numbers but HOF? Only 6 of 13 seasons over 1000 yards. Just not HOF numbers.

To play devil's advocate, Andre Reed looks like he will make it in in the next year or to. He had only 4 seasons with 1,000+ yards in 16 seasons played. He also had exactly 10 TD in a season one time.He ranked in the Top 5 in receptions twice, receving yards twice, and receiving TD once. And he never won a SB or was an All Pro. Yet it looks like he's going to make it in.

And there's your case for Hines Ward. Ward will retire ranked ahead of contemporary Andre Reed in most every major regular & postseason receiving category. He also has a SB MVP and two SB wins.

 

[Clarence the barber]

I just do not understand why anyone thinks he is a HOFer. His career has not justified it. Very good player and extremely valuable to his team but not a serious canidate for the best of the best. He was not among te best of the best at his position during his time. 3 seasons over 10 TDs, 1 season over 1168 yards, 4 seasons over 82 catches. Good numbers but HOF? Only 6 of 13 seasons over 1000 yards. Just not HOF numbers.

To play devil's advocate, Andre Reed looks like he will make it in in the next year or to. He had only 4 seasons with 1,000+ yards in 16 seasons played. He also had exactly 10 TD in a season one time.He ranked in the Top 5 in receptions twice, receving yards twice, and receiving TD once. And he never won a SB or was an All Pro. Yet it looks like he's going to make it in.

And there's your case for Hines Ward. Ward will retire ranked ahead of contemporary Andre Reed in most every major regular & postseason receiving category. He also has a SB MVP and two SB wins.

Problem for Ward is that he's going to be considered at least 5 years after Reed is already on the doorstep. As time goes on, these numbers mean less and less. I think you are wrong on Ward, but that doesn't mean that there aren't a million people out there that think he was a hell of a player. Maybe Ward will Lynn Swann himself in.

 

[N Zone]

id say holt has a better chance than bruce. he was actually near the top of his position for a decent stretch, but i dont remember bruce regarded as such.

At the inception of the GSOT, Bruce was their best WR and one of the best in the game (to my recollection). Plus he had a some monster seasons in the mid 90s.

IMO Holt is more deserving than Bruce. Consider:1st team All Pro selections: Holt 1, Bruce 0Pro Bowl selections: Holt 7, Bruce 4Seasons in top 10 in receptions: Holt 5, Bruce 2Seasons in top 10 in receiving yards: Holt 8, Bruce 4Seasons in top 10 in receiving TDs: Holt 4, Bruce 2The only reason Bruce is ranked higher on the receiving lists is that he played 50 more games. That said, I do think it's possible that Bruce's ranks on those lists will get him serious HOF consideration, perhaps more than Holt.

Don't forget Bruce caught the game winning TD including big time adjustment to the ball, cut, and yards after catch to the endzone to win the Super Bowl. That means a lot. Plus, Bruce had a season, at least once, that was first team All Pro caliber, even if he didn't get the vote.

 

[dgreen]

Ward will retire ranked ahead of contemporary Andre Reed...

Except they're not really contemporaries. Sure, their careers overlapped in 1998-2000. But, the league was different in regards to passing.League Passing Averages in Reed's Career

Completion % - 56.7%

Y/A - 6.33

TD% - 3.99

INT% - 3.53

ATT/TM/G - 32.22

COM/TM/G - 18.26

YDS/TM/G 204.07

TD/TM/G - 1.28

INT/TM/G - 1.14

League Passing Averages in Ward's Career

Completion % - 59.4

Y/A - 6.40

TD% - 4.08

INT% - 3.15

ATT/TM/G - 32.79

COM/TM/G - 19.48

YDS/TM/G 209.80

TD/TM/G - 1.34

INT/TM/G - 1.03

Numbers like completion % and YDS/GM are trending upwards the last four years across the league, benefiting someone like Ward.

OK, I guess someone could make the argument that they are still comparable since Reed was on a "passing team" and Ward on a "running team". But, the league has changed since Reed left. The passing game uses WRs like RBs more today than previous decades. There are more spread offensive sets, even for a team like Pittsburgh. And, those sets are even used down near the goal line.

 

[Q-Bert]

Bold = Definitely going to get in

Italics = I think more likely to get in than Ward

Here are some other potentially HOF worthy receivers whose careers overlapped with Ward's . . .

Marvin Harrison

Cris Carter

Tim Brown

Terrell Owens

Randy Moss

Isaac Bruce

Andre Reed

Torry Holt

Derrick Mason

Jimmy Smith

Rod Smith

Derrick Mason

Reggie Wayne

Andre Johnson

Chad Johnson

Larry Fitzgerald

Anquan Boldin

Steve Smith

Brandon Marshall

Calvin Johnson

Sure, there are some guys there that are more than likely not Hall worthy (the 3 Smiths, Ochocinco, and Mason) and the other guys that are still playing have a long way to go.

But how many guys that played at roughly the same time (or close to it) are the voters realistically gong to induct? I just listed 20 guys that certainly are at least in the discussion with Ward. From that list of guys that played in the past 10 years (or other recent players that I may have missed), for the Ward supporters, please list and rank the guys you feel are more deserving of HOF induction than Ward. Or, if that is too complicated, list all the guys you would have inducted along with Ward.

I only brought this up as WR has generally been one of the hardest positions to get into the HOF. IIRC, there are 20-22 players who played WR/FL/E currently enshrined in the HOF.

That's 9 guys I think are more deserving/likely to get in than Ward. Plus there are a few other guys on that list who are roughly equivalent to Ward.

 

[onlyseventeenpoints?]

 

[cvnpoka]

Here are some other potentially HOF worthy receivers whose careers overlapped with Ward's . . .Marvin HarrisonCris CarterTim BrownTerrell OwensRandy MossIsaac BruceAndre ReedTorry HoltDerrick MasonJimmy SmithRod SmithDerrick MasonReggie WayneAndre JohnsonChad JohnsonLarry FitzgeraldAnquan BoldinSteve SmithBrandon MarshallCalvin JohnsonSure, there are some guys there that are more than likely not Hall worthy (the 3 Smiths, Ochocinco, and Mason) and the other guys that are still playing have a long way to go.But how many guys that played at roughly the same time (or close to it) are the voters realistically gong to induct? I just listed 20 guys that certainly are at least in the discussion with Ward. From that list of guys that played in the past 10 years (or other recent players that I may have missed), for the Ward supporters, please list and rank the guys you feel are more deserving of HOF induction than Ward. Or, if that is too complicated, list all the guys you would have inducted along with Ward.I only brought this up as WR has generally been one of the hardest positions to get into the HOF. IIRC, there are 20-22 players who played WR/FL/E currently enshrined in the HOF.

id say harrison, moss, owens and carters are pretty much locks. tim brown, holt and jimmy smith have an outside shot and id expect at least one to make it.i dont think andre and fitz really belong with that era, it will be over 10 yrs since carter and brown have been eligible when they become eligible. i do think andre and fitz get it. odds are at least on of the others among, calvin, steve, marshall, ocho etc will have a crazy productive end of career and get a resume for it.anyway, would gladly take 1:1 that ward gets in the hall of fame. his legend is enormous, doesnt matter that its overblown.

 

[Tau837]

I just do not understand why anyone thinks he is a HOFer. His career has not justified it. Very good player and extremely valuable to his team but not a serious canidate for the best of the best. He was not among te best of the best at his position during his time. 3 seasons over 10 TDs, 1 season over 1168 yards, 4 seasons over 82 catches. Good numbers but HOF? Only 6 of 13 seasons over 1000 yards. Just not HOF numbers.

To play devil's advocate, Andre Reed looks like he will make it in in the next year or to. He had only 4 seasons with 1,000+ yards in 16 seasons played. He also had exactly 10 TD in a season one time.He ranked in the Top 5 in receptions twice, receving yards twice, and receiving TD once. And he never won a SB or was an All Pro. Yet it looks like he's going to make it in.

And there's your case for Hines Ward. Ward will retire ranked ahead of contemporary Andre Reed in most every major regular & postseason receiving category. He also has a SB MVP and two SB wins.

I disagree with this. First of all, calling them contemporaries is quite a stretch; Reed retired after the 2000 seasons, while Ward is still playing 10 years later. I don't know how you can characterize them as contemporaries. In fact, Ward's contemporaries are exactly his problem, as has been posted numerous times in this thread... there are too many of them who have more compelling cases. Meanwhile, Reed did not have as many contemporaries with compelling cases, and that's a big reason why he is set to get in within the next couple of years.Reed retired as top 5 in all three major receiving categories. Ward will not be close to that. That is the single most compelling thing about Reed's resume, and it's a huge edge over Ward in this comparison.IMO a WR who has played on teams that went 2-1 in Super Bowls gets significantly more credit than a WR who played on teams that went to 0-4 in Super Bowls. Maybe it would make a difference for a QB, but not a WR.The Super Bowl MVP helps Ward, but not enough to overcome everything else. And, besides, the HOF voters won't be asking themselves how he compares to Reed. They'll be asking themselves how he compares to Harrison, Owens, Moss, Bruce, Holt, et al.

 

[cvnpoka]

id say holt has a better chance than bruce. he was actually near the top of his position for a decent stretch, but i dont remember bruce regarded as such.

At the inception of the GSOT, Bruce was their best WR and one of the best in the game (to my recollection). Plus he had a some monster seasons in the mid 90s.

that's how I remember it - meanwhile I don't think that Holt was ever considered better than his peers - hence the reason why IMO Bruce is higher in the pecking order . . .

well, all i can say is you remember wrong. holt usurped the no1 slot in just his rookie year and there was really no question from there.

 

[Tau837]

For those who are suggesting that Tim Brown, Cris Carter, and Andre Reed will not make it, I believe that every WR who has ever been a finalist has ultimately made it. With Reed appearing set to make it soon based on this year's voting pattern, I don't see any reason to believe that any of these three will not ultimately be inducted.

 

[cvnpoka]

its pretty bizarre that andre reed if andre reed makes it. his stats are a poor mans derrick mason. does he have some other claim to fame?

anyway, i think jimmy smith will be the most egregious snub for a long time. he had a dominant 10 yr stretch without any notoriety.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SmitJi00.htm

 

[Clarence the barber]

its pretty bizarre that andre reed if andre reed makes it. his stats are a poor mans derrick mason. does he have some other claim to fame?

anyway, i think jimmy smith will be the most egregious snub for a long time. he had a dominant 10 yr stretch without any notoriety.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SmitJi00.htm

He was 1/3 of the K-Gun offense that went to 4 consecutive super bowls.

 

[duaneok66]

id say holt has a better chance than bruce. he was actually near the top of his position for a decent stretch, but i dont remember bruce regarded as such.

At the inception of the GSOT, Bruce was their best WR and one of the best in the game (to my recollection). Plus he had a some monster seasons in the mid 90s.

that's how I remember it - meanwhile I don't think that Holt was ever considered better than his peers - hence the reason why IMO Bruce is higher in the pecking order . . .

well, all i can say is you remember wrong. holt usurped the no1 slot in just his rookie year and there was really no question from there.

Bruce was a top tier player before the Rams even signed Holt . . . and in 1999, Bruce was still the top dog (Holt only had 788 yards as a rookie) - please stop exaggerating . . .

 

[Tau837]

its pretty bizarre that andre reed if andre reed makes it. his stats are a poor mans derrick mason. does he have some other claim to fame?

As I already posted, at the time he retired, he was top 5 in receptions, receiving yards, and receiving TDs. He made 7 Pro Bowls and was the top receiver for a team that made 4 consecutive Super Bowls.I agree personally that it's not a particularly compelling case, but that's the case. The top 5 ranks are probably the strongest part of it.

 

[Ghost Rider]

anyway, i think jimmy smith will be the most egregious snub for a long time. he had a dominant 10 yr stretch without any notoriety.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SmitJi00.htm

I would never have called Jimmy Smith dominant. He was really good for a while, but he never scored more than 8 touchdowns in a season. And 67 career touchdown catches is pretty weak for someone with that many catches and yards. And considering he is not top 10 in yards or catches, and has almost no postseason success to cling to, I'd say his chances of ever making the Hall are very slim. There is simply no way he should ever make it in ahead of Harrison, Moss, Owens, Carter, Brown, Bruce, Holt or even Rod Smith or Hines Ward.I mean, if these guys are having trouble getting in...

Cris Carter 1,101-13,899-130

Tim Brown 1,094-14,934-100

...how does Jimmy Smith get in with 862-12,287-67?

 

[cobalt_27]

If Ward ever gets inducted, it would remove any/all doubt that the NFL HOF is a joke.

 

[cobalt_27]

I mean, if these guys are having trouble getting in...Cris Carter 1,101-13,899-130Tim Brown 1,094-14,934-100...how does Jimmy Smith get in with 862-12,287-67?

He shouldn't even be in the discussion.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I mean, if these guys are having trouble getting in...Cris Carter 1,101-13,899-130Tim Brown 1,094-14,934-100...how does Jimmy Smith get in with 862-12,287-67?

He shouldn't even be in the discussion.

Smith was a late breakout, but he was absurdly productive when he played. If you look at the best 10 seasons for every wide receiver, here are their per-game receiving yard averages over their best 10 years (not necessarily consecutive, although Smith's were):

Player			  GM	 YD	  YD/GMJerry Rice		 156	14254	91.4Marvin Harrison	154	12861	83.5Randy Moss		 160	13145	82.2Torry Holt		 158	12660	80.1Terrell Owens	  152	12085	79.5Don Maynard		130	10185	78.3Isaac Bruce		155	12122	78.2Jimmy Smith		155	11999	77.4Michael Irvin	  149	11359	76.2Lance Alworth	  132	10040	76.1Tim Brown		  160	11922	74.5James Lofton	   147	10790	73.4Henry Ellard	   152	11113	73.1Don Hutson		 104	 7455	71.7Steve Largent	  153	10905	71.3Cris Carter		156	11099	71.1Rod Smith		  157	11000	70.1Gary Clark		 151	10331	68.4Raymond Berry	  121	 8216	67.9Derrick Mason	  157	10481	66.8Art Monk		   148	 9767	66.0Andre Reed		 153	10076	65.9Hines Ward		 154	10063	65.3Terry Glenn		130	 8423	64.8Keyshawn Johnson   151	 9756	64.6

That's pretty elite company in the "over 75 yards per game" group. You've got 10 guys, including four HOFers, three guys who dominated the league for over a decade and look to be HOFers (Moss, Owens, Harrison), Smith, Holt and Bruce. And unlike Holt/Bruce, Smith played in a relatively conservative offense. It's certainly possible that one day, 9 of those 10 guys will wind up in the HOF, and Brown/Lofton/Ellard aren't exactly mediocre guys below him. Smith was awesome for a decade statistically, he just played in a small market and didn't score a bunch of touchdowns.I wouldn't put him over Carter or Brown, but I can't really say that those guys were clearly better, either. They were just better for longer.

 

[cobalt_27]

I mean, if these guys are having trouble getting in...Cris Carter 1,101-13,899-130Tim Brown 1,094-14,934-100...how does Jimmy Smith get in with 862-12,287-67?

He shouldn't even be in the discussion.

Smith was a late breakout, but he was absurdly productive when he played. If you look at the best 10 seasons for every wide receiver, here are their per-game receiving yard averages over their best 10 years (not necessarily consecutive, although Smith's were):

Player			  GM	 YD	  YD/GMJerry Rice		 156	14254	91.4Marvin Harrison	154	12861	83.5Randy Moss		 160	13145	82.2Torry Holt		 158	12660	80.1Terrell Owens	  152	12085	79.5Don Maynard		130	10185	78.3Isaac Bruce		155	12122	78.2Jimmy Smith		155	11999	77.4Michael Irvin	  149	11359	76.2Lance Alworth	  132	10040	76.1Tim Brown		  160	11922	74.5James Lofton	   147	10790	73.4Henry Ellard	   152	11113	73.1Don Hutson		 104	 7455	71.7Steve Largent	  153	10905	71.3Cris Carter		156	11099	71.1Rod Smith		  157	11000	70.1Gary Clark		 151	10331	68.4Raymond Berry	  121	 8216	67.9Derrick Mason	  157	10481	66.8Art Monk		   148	 9767	66.0Andre Reed		 153	10076	65.9Hines Ward		 154	10063	65.3Terry Glenn		130	 8423	64.8Keyshawn Johnson   151	 9756	64.6

That's pretty elite company in the "over 75 yards per game" group. You've got 10 guys, including four HOFers, three guys who dominated the league for over a decade and look to be HOFers (Moss, Owens, Harrison), Smith, Holt and Bruce. And unlike Holt/Bruce, Smith played in a relatively conservative offense. It's certainly possible that one day, 9 of those 10 guys will wind up in the HOF, and Brown/Lofton/Ellard aren't exactly mediocre guys below him. Smith was awesome for a decade statistically, he just played in a small market and didn't score a bunch of touchdowns.I wouldn't put him over Carter or Brown, but I can't really say that those guys were clearly better, either. They were just better for longer.

He was a very good receiver. He belongs in the HOVG.

 

[cvnpoka]

well, all i can say is you remember wrong. holt usurped the no1 slot in just his rookie year and there was really no question from there.

Bruce was a top tier player before the Rams even signed Holt . . . and in 1999, Bruce was still the top dog (Holt only had 788 yards as a rookie) - please stop exaggerating . . .

sorry i mistyped. meant to say he took over the spot in his 2nd year. regardless, for the time they played together, holt was clearly the better receiver and was regarded as such.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

id say holt has a better chance than bruce. he was actually near the top of his position for a decent stretch, but i dont remember bruce regarded as such.

At the inception of the GSOT, Bruce was their best WR and one of the best in the game (to my recollection). Plus he had a some monster seasons in the mid 90s.

IMO Holt is more deserving than Bruce. Consider:1st team All Pro selections: Holt 1, Bruce 0Pro Bowl selections: Holt 7, Bruce 4Seasons in top 10 in receptions: Holt 5, Bruce 2Seasons in top 10 in receiving yards: Holt 8, Bruce 4Seasons in top 10 in receiving TDs: Holt 4, Bruce 2The only reason Bruce is ranked higher on the receiving lists is that he played 50 more games. That said, I do think it's possible that Bruce's ranks on those lists will get him serious HOF consideration, perhaps more than Holt.

Please do not ever bring up Pro-Bowl selections when discussing how good a player is. Pro-Bowls mean nothing

 

[cvnpoka]

I mean, if these guys are having trouble getting in...Cris Carter 1,101-13,899-130Tim Brown 1,094-14,934-100...how does Jimmy Smith get in with 862-12,287-67?

He shouldn't even be in the discussion.

smith was really good on a per game basis over his 10 yrs peak. brown and carters yardage and catch accumulations are a bit higher largely bc they had a bunch of middling seasons early in their career and late in their career. yardage and catches over their peaks is very similar. carter blows both out of the water in tds, and brown scored a bit more often than smith.anyway, i never said smith deserved it more than those guys. i think those guys will get it, and they deserve it imo. i dont think smith will get a chance and he should.

 

[hutchins929]

If I had a vote... Yes!

 

[DawgPoundNJ]

If the NFL wants to give out HOF busts to guys no one knows, who have passed away, and are video men, then good players will either have to wait longer or never get in at all.

It's the Pro Football Hall of Fame, not the Players Hall of Fame, guy. Ed Sabol was responsible for marketing the game like no one in any other sport had ever done. NFL Films brought the game in all its majesty to generations of fans and grew the sport exponentially.

Tell me how that is less important than a career as the Steelers' #2 WR that racked up stats simply because of longevity.

 

[Bri]

its pretty bizarre that andre reed if andre reed makes it. his stats are a poor mans derrick mason. does he have some other claim to fame?

anyway, i think jimmy smith will be the most egregious snub for a long time. he had a dominant 10 yr stretch without any notoriety.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SmitJi00.htm

To me, it seems Reed played in a different era so it would revert back to memories of when he played. Back then, if there was a game on where (insert HOF WR name) was playing for one team and Reed for the other, the announcers would definitely characterize it as two of the game's greats.

 

[Bri]

id say holt has a better chance than bruce. he was actually near the top of his position for a decent stretch, but i dont remember bruce regarded as such.

At the inception of the GSOT, Bruce was their best WR and one of the best in the game (to my recollection). Plus he had a some monster seasons in the mid 90s.

IMO Holt is more deserving than Bruce. Consider:1st team All Pro selections: Holt 1, Bruce 0Pro Bowl selections: Holt 7, Bruce 4Seasons in top 10 in receptions: Holt 5, Bruce 2Seasons in top 10 in receiving yards: Holt 8, Bruce 4Seasons in top 10 in receiving TDs: Holt 4, Bruce 2The only reason Bruce is ranked higher on the receiving lists is that he played 50 more games. That said, I do think it's possible that Bruce's ranks on those lists will get him serious HOF consideration, perhaps more than Holt.

Don't forget Bruce caught the game winning TD including big time adjustment to the ball, cut, and yards after catch to the endzone to win the Super Bowl. That means a lot. Plus, Bruce had a season, at least once, that was first team All Pro caliber, even if he didn't get the vote.

Yeah, Bruce had one of the best single seasons ever for a WR (top 5? 10?) and didn't get 1st team all-pro in what was just a super unusually strong year for WRs. 119 catches for 1781 yards and 13 TDsI think both Holt and Bruce get in. Aside from the obvious, I remember Bruce having 170? 200? yard games that were some of the most dominant performances I've ever seen by a WR. There's probably a stat he owns like most games with more than 170 yards or somesuch. I see the Smith talk here and he had one with a zillion catches for a couple hundred yards or so that I remember. I don't think he's a HOFer but he's a good measuring stick. I think Rob Moore used to be a good measuring stick too.I think when it gets close with stats being overtly impressive, then you go with your gut and that's fueled by game memories. FF isn't bad either as you remember guys were the best that week or that year and stuff like that.I think the guy that played opposite all these WRs we're discussing is significant.In my memory, Tim Brown is considerably better than Carter. There was a time Jake Reed and Randy Moss were better than Carter or believed to be more productive in projections so Carter wasn't even the best on his team. I love Holt and do think he was fortunate to play opposite Bruce and in a Martz O when Martz was fantastic. I am only talking about a little bit of credit, but I'd give Brown and Bruce a little over these guys because they did it without help. Just a little, not beating up Holt or Carter.But the thread topic is Ward and Plaxico was the focus for a while and seems like many think it's been Holmes and Wallace currently. That kinda bugs me about him.

 

[cobalt_27]

I mean, if these guys are having trouble getting in...Cris Carter 1,101-13,899-130Tim Brown 1,094-14,934-100...how does Jimmy Smith get in with 862-12,287-67?

He shouldn't even be in the discussion.

smith was really good on a per game basis over his 10 yrs peak. brown and carters yardage and catch accumulations are a bit higher largely bc they had a bunch of middling seasons early in their career and late in their career. yardage and catches over their peaks is very similar. carter blows both out of the water in tds, and brown scored a bit more often than smith.anyway, i never said smith deserved it more than those guys. i think those guys will get it, and they deserve it imo. i dont think smith will get a chance and he should.

Jimmy Smith. Very good.Carter and Brown. On the borderline of very good and great.Hines Ward. Very good.[/thread]

 

[N Zone]

Since Art Monk is already in the Hall of Fame now, and based on the poll choices, guess Hines Ward will be in the HOF no matter what!

Hines Ward was on the ballot for the top 100 greatest NFL players the NFL Network did.

I think he'll definitely get into the HOF eventually based on stats, blocking/intangibles, Super Bowls and being a Steeler.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Jimmy Smith. Very good.Carter and Brown. On the borderline of very good and great.Hines Ward. Very good.[/thread]

Ward has been every single bit as good/great as Carter for Hall of Fame consideration.12.3 vs 12.6Career 1042 (4.75 per game) vs. 1164 (4.7 per game) catches.0.43 TDs per game vs 0.56 TDs (admittedly this is Carters claim) to fame.Meanwhile consider Wards leadership/play-style (claim to fame) and non-receiving assets that Carter never brought (he admits to being a problem player).I'd also say that Ward is far more "famous" then Carter, as an ambassador to the NFL and his team.

 

[cobalt_27]

Jimmy Smith. Very good.Carter and Brown. On the borderline of very good and great.Hines Ward. Very good.[/thread]

Ward has been every single bit as good/great as Carter for Hall of Fame consideration.12.3 vs 12.6Career 1042 (4.75 per game) vs. 1164 (4.7 per game) catches.0.43 TDs per game vs 0.56 TDs (admittedly this is Carters claim) to fame.Meanwhile consider Wards leadership/play-style (claim to fame) and non-receiving assets that Carter never brought (he admits to being a problem player).I'd also say that Ward is far more "famous" then Carter, as an ambassador to the NFL and his team.

Thanks for all the stats. These are very helpful. Since you seem to have each of their respective stats handy, would you kindly help flesh this out a little bit. Given that you certainly know your football and appreciate how the style of football has evolved over the years...could you also list how many times Chris Carter finished in the top-5 compared to his peers in receptions and TDs in his career? Likewise, how does that compare to Hines Ward's top-5 rankings in those categories in his career. I'm sure they're equivocal, but I just thought it would strengthen your argument a bit. To, you know...demonstrate the relevancy of these data in the context of the respective eras in which they played.TIAOh, and one last thing, Chris Carter won the Walter Payton Man of the Year award. I think he has the "ambassador" thing down ok.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Oh, and one last thing, Chris Carter won the Walter Payton Man of the Year award. I think he has the "ambassador" thing down ok.

Way more people know who Ward is and the sport he represents then compared to Carter... not even close. Ward crosses the football boundary into the public.