This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
There’s definitely a substantial difference in perspective between All-Pro voters and Hall of Fame voters. Honestly, how much effort do voters put into picking the All-Pro receivers every year? How often do we even get a controversy? The voters look at the regular season leaders in the triple-crown categories, pick the two guys with the best overall stats, and move on. Nobody's considering "intangibles" or anything else. At least I can't think of any All-Pro receiver who got in without being among that year's league leaders. But with the Hall of Fame you've got voters evaluating players with varying career lengths, guys who played in different eras, guys who played for teams with different offensive philosophies, the opinions of people who saw them play, postseason performance, blocking, leadership, winning, etc. Things that don’t show up in a receiver’s statistical line do come into play in Hall of Fame voting in a way they don’t for All-Pro voting.
I generally think measuring players' careers primarily involves these factors:1. Statistics (ETA: at least for those positions for which sufficient statistics are readily available)2. Honors/awards3. Winning/championshipsI think context can be important with each factor. For example, better to compile great statistics with a weak supporting cast than with a strong supporting cast... better to be a primary contributor in the winning/championships category than just a good player on a great team... etc. And there is room for variation, like shorter peak performance at an elite level vs. sustained performance for several years at a lesser, but still great, level.Ward will not measure up well to his peers or to other HOF WRs in categories 1 and 2, and I don't see category 3 being enough to carry him to HOF induction at the WR position. It's possible it would be enough if he were the QB, or if he dominated both playoff runs, or if the Steelers win another title with Ward playing a key role... but as of now I don't think it's enough. So IMO those arguing for Ward are really saying there is more to it than those 3 categories... for example, an "intangibles" category, which for Ward would include leadership, blocking, toughness, etc.So I'm interested in learning how many players have made the HOF while excelling in fewer than 2 of the 3 criteria I listed above. Maybe there are more than I think, but I'm expecting it is very few HOFers, if any. Furthermore, I suspect it is likely that any such HOFers played 30+ years ago. Expansion has made it that much harder for players to get in due to the fact that there are more teams, and thus more players, and thus more players that achieve enough to warrant consideration... i.e., it has led to more competition.Anyway, I'm interested in players with comparable situations/accomplishments who have made the HOF. Who are they?MarshallRob said:
This board is very hard to discuss HoF voting with, primarily because of the FF mentality that most folks like Peter King are clueless on. I maintain he will be voted in and quickly too. He is almsot a lock for 1,000 receptions for his career and that should be enough with all the other factors in his favor.
Do you think he'll be voted in as quickly as Tim Brown (1094 receptions, almost 15K yards, 100 TD) or Cris Carter (1101 receptions, almost 14K yards, 130 TD), who both are still waiting? Is anyone really going to put Ward in over those two guys? He'll also have to wait longer than Isaac Bruce, TO, and Marvin Harrison. Fact is, there are a lot of WRs out there and only so many slots.Though I predict he'll eventually get in via the Art Monk clause; voters will get tired of people flapping their lips about him.
Absolutely since he can pass both of them in receptions and has 2 SB rings and a SB MVP I believe, the other two don't have any of that. It's a lot more than just receptions although he has plenty of those too.
First of all, it is relatively unlikely he'll pass them in receptions. He has 895, which means he needs over 200 more career receptions. He's 34 years old already. FBG is projecting him for 81 receptions this year; even if he gets that this year and next (which is unlikely--he's only done that twice in the past 5 years), he'll still be 40 receptions short and 36 years old going into the season. Second, receptions are a compiler stat; they do less to measure performance than other receiving stats, which is why Art Monk holding the receptions record for a few seconds didn't do much for him. And in other receiving stats, Ward has even less chance of catching the guys ahead of him--and he's going to get passed by guys behind him like Ochocinco and Reggie Wayne.
My sentiments exactly.Yes, he might get in someday...but 1st ballot is a pipe dream.
Don't listen to me...here is what Peter King had to say and he is 1 of the 44 voters for the HoF and quite vocal. Meaning although this board thinks he is a total goofball because he doesn't understand FF, the HoF voters love the guy and respect him for his position with SI..."I never judge a player with finality until his career is over. It bugs me when I read a guy in mid-career is a "future Hall of Famer.'' But Ward, to me, is one of the best total football players at any position I've ever covered. He has three edges over some of the big-number guys. Two championships. One of the best blocking wide receivers ever, though some will hold it against him that he's had a few dirty hits on defensive players in his career. And a leader of the highest degree, the way Michael Irvin was in Dallas. I think leadership helped Irvin. Irvin leads Ward in Super Bowl wins, 3-2. Ward leads in receptions, 895-750, and could make the edge daunting in the next couple of years."
Serious question: how many guys do you think, if asked in isolation, King would say are HOF worthy? I think he would praise more players than there are slots for HOF induction. The point is, asking about Ward doesn't really accomplish much. But asking about Ward vs. Harrison, Moss, Owens, Bruce, Holt, et al puts it in different context... as does asking about Ward vs. those other WRs vs. Jason Taylor vs. Ronde Barber vs. Bill Parcells, etc.I really don't think one should put a lot of stock in quotes provided by people like King when not in a context similar to what occurs during HOF voting.
Extremely
What almost always gets lost in these Shark Pool HOF discussions is the fact that there are more players than there are HOF slots. Look at Ward's resume and he sure looks like a HOFer, especially compared to WRs from yesteryear. But how many WRs from this era are you going to put into the Hall? As others have already mentioned, there are already a significant number of WRs who aren't in but deserve it more than Ward does.
But again you seem to miss the point as do many others. You can keep ripping Peter King all you want but he has 1 of only 44 votes for guys to make it into the HoF...he had to do something in order for that right. And he does influence those other 43 much to the dismay of you and others. I'm not a huge Peter King fan but that doesn't matter because neither you nor I will be voting on this...but he will be. I really think you and many others in here have missed the point of what myself and others have stated. To the point it's almost pointless to post back at you about this. The argument over receptions, Timmy Brown, Chris Carter...that only seems to matter in the FBG Shark Pool, doesn't seem to matter as much to the voters. The fact is Hines Ward is an incredible football player that has tons of receptions and will likely rack up 1,000-1,100+ receptions which sits him very close to the top of the mountain, certainly top5, then you add in 2 SB rings, a SB MVP, and a guy that is known as a headhunter from the WR spot and you are going to have a football player that guys that are in their 50s, 60s, 70s, and so on that remember football when it wasn't a pinball passing game and you have the makings of Hines Ward going into the HoF rather easily. I know that doesn't sit well with many in here but it is what it is. We can debate till we're blue in the face but you're not having a real conversation if you do not acknowledge what King is saying.
I didn't rip King. In fact I said "people like King." By which I meant football writers and HOF voters. I think it's you who missed the point.For example, are there players about whom in the past King has said things similarly praiseworthy who later became HOF eligible and were not voted in? I suspect so.
He's one guy. He is correct that Ray Guy doesn't belong in the Hall, but that doesn't stop bozos from putting Guy in the semis and finals almost every year.
Ward is pretty dang unlikely to end up in the top 5 in receptions. He has three active guys ahead of him, and two of them are younger than he is (TO, Gonzalez, and Randy Moss). Assuming that TO, Moss, and Gonzalez are all more likely to catch Tim Brown and Cris Carter than Ward is, the best Ward can reasonably hope for is sixth place at retirement, even if he passes Brown and Carter, which as I noted is relatively unlikely in itself. Add in the fact that he won't make the top 10 in receiving yards and certainly won't make top 5 in TDs (will end up at least 20-30 TDs behind Harrison in fifth place) and you're looking at someone who compares disfavorably to a whole bunch of his contemporaries.
Aikman is no comparison--the Hall loves QBs, there's no way Aikman was going to be held out. Irvin is a better comparison for Ward, although Irvin had better per-season numbers and comparisons to contemporaries. And Irvin, with three rings and a 6/114/2 Super Bowl performance, had to wait several years to get in.
Eligible in 2005, went in 2007, if that's several then fine. And he was a finalist in 2005 and 2006.
Right, so with a resume at least as good as Ward's, and less competition, it took Irvin three years to get in. Irvin was the first WR inducted since Lofton in 2003, and his main competition was Art Monk, who he was clearly more deserving than, and Andre Reed, who's still not in. If Irvin hadn't gone in in 2007, he would have had trouble, because Tim Brown and Cris Carter showed up in 2008.By the time Ward is up for induction, he'll be competing against everyone on this list who isn't in yet:
I'm with you on most of what you posted, MoP, but here is where you may be doing your argument a disservice. What exactly do you mean by the bolded phrase above?It's far too common in these HoF discussions for that phrase to mean "greatest stats of his era". The notion that a player has to far outshine his contemporaries in the box score to be "Hall-worthy" is a fallacy that is grossly perpetuated. Especially so, given the underlying basis for this message board.
Ward is a 1st ballot in my book. Owens will get in because of stats, but make no mistake Owens is not half the team player that Ward is.
My point Sidewinder was that even though I am not a big Aikman fan that I knew he was going to get in and I understand why he was voted in even though I disagree. I didn't run up and down the Shark Pool angry about it either, I just accepted that he was going in. Personally I feel Dan Marino was the best pure passer to ever grip the laces and no one will ever change my mind.
Let's assume normal career progression. We'll give Ward two more decent seasons and another year or two of declining production, which will put him somewhere over 1000 receptions and ahead of Isaac Bruce. He retires at age 37, and is eligible for the Hall in 2018.Assuming normal careers for everyone else, that means that by the time Ward is eligible for the Hall, in receptions (the least important stat) he'll be behind:RiceHarrisonCarterBrownTOGonzalezMossIn addition, by 2018 he likely will be passed by:A.JohnsonL.FitzgeraldAnd possibly byC.OchocincoR.WayneSo in the expected case, he might squeak into the top 10 in receptions. His other stats won't be even that good. And there will be guys ahead of him who he'll be competing with for selection.
and other than Rice, the rest of those guys add up to a grand total of, what, 2 Super Bowls and 0 SB MVP awards?He'll also have more TD receptions than quite a few of them.
The only contemporary Ward has a decent chance of catching is Isaac Bruce. The contemporaries are:Moss 148
He's not been the best WR of his era, but the completeness of his game, his solid stats, 2 SB rings, SB MVP, dominating post season stats..... I'm starting to believe he's a lock. Probably not FB, but still a lock.
I'm on your side on this one, but there were several stories/segments that I saw in the past two weeks that if PIT won yesterday that would make Ward a virtual lock for the HOF and he had an exceptional case to begin with. That was based more on the hype such as he's "a man's man in the world of football the way it was meant to be played." The usual, he's a winner and played on a team that was a multi-time SB winner.
Let's also not forget that Terrell Owens and Randy Moss will be up for consideration at the same time (give or take a season). And Reggie Wayne, as well.
Art Monk got in as part of a different era, although I agree he's probably the use case for those who argue in favor of Ward. Monk made a whopping one 1st team All Pro team in his career and only three Pro Bowls. Ward has never made a 1st team All Pro squad, and has four Pro Bowls.
Exactly. We can't even get offensive lineman into the HOF that deserve it, and blocking is the primary way in which their careers are judged.
Where did I say there was a ranking?
If it were that simple, this thread wouldn't be 7 pages long.
