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!
Simple answer: Both belong.HOF debate on these boards has become all about regular season numbers. It's a fantasy football board so I guess that's to be expected. My point, if the debate is entirely based on numbers let's at least look at the most important numbers. Postseason performance has already paved the road to the HOF for two Steelers WR, I think it's likely to do the same for Hines Ward.'Just Win Baby said:
You are at footballguys.com, you should act like you belong. We discuss pro football here -- as deep as anywhere in the world. No need to act coy... and all of a sudden not have an opinion around these parts. Laughable.
Mike Holmgren wishes he had.
It's actually NFL commentators that have said it so frequently that most people accept it. He's the best I've seen, and that's all I'll say on the matter, but the bottom line is that if you polled 100 random Hall voters on the issue, Ward would likely get the most support to that end of any WR. That's going to factor into his candidacy, so whether or not it's a "fact" is irrelevant. Perception is reality.First off, if we are gonna put guys in the Hall because they simply did well what was asked of them, are we gonna put Darren Sproles in the Hall when he retires because he does an awesome job at what has been asked of him in San Diego and New Orleans? The obvious answer is no. Second, longevity is a good thing, yes, but when you were never really one of the top guys at your position (which Ward never really was, except for maybe a year or two, same with Bettis), it is hard to see that player as a Hall of Famer. Ward and Bettis would both be locks in the Hall of Very Good. I will give them both that.'Evilgrin 72 said:For both players, I divided career #s by games started and then multiplied by 16. Ward has averaged more catches and more TDs per 16 starts over his career than Irvin did. So, if averaging 6.5 TDs a season over 13 years (counting all games, not just starts) is not Hall-worthy, than Irvin's 5.9 TDs per season over 11 seasons DEFINITELY isn't. You also have to take into account that Ward was never a deep threat, which almost all of these other guys mentioned were/are. That was never his game, he's a possession receiver and his job his whole career has been to aid the run game, and make big catches when needed (3rd downs, red zone, etc.) It's not as sexy, but you have to consider how well a player has done what is asked of him rather than just look at raw numbers.
Besides, I don't buy into the notion that a player's prime is all that is to be considered. Performing over a great length of time is also something to be valued, IMO. People use the term "compiler" all the time, as if playing for a long time is something that devalues a player's stats, but the bottom line is that if you're still out there and starting/producing at an advanced age, then you're probably a pretty damned good player. A guy like Terrell Davis, who had a super-high peak but nothing else (unfortunately) does not belong in the HOF over a guy like Bettis, who was an often solid, sometimes elite performer for well over a decade. That's just my opinion, and just to compare a Bronco to a Steeler because, well, why not?
And P.S. - I love Rod Smith and wouldn't cry if he was inducted either. Guy was great for a long time, but he's just a (slightly) lesser version of Ward, career-wise. 3 Pro Bowls to Ward's 4, 1 2nd team All-Pro to Ward's 2, no SB MVP. Had a better peak, but didn't contribute for quite as long.
That is most certainly not a fact. It is merely an opinion, one Steelers fans have spun so much that they all think it is fact.'Evilgrin 72 said:
No chance. If anything, it will help him. WRs have a(n often deserved) reputation as being a bunch of primadonnas, being considered "dirty" will only aid him in getting in.
David I know you are a stats guy, can you dial up the postseason resumes of the WR you mentioned above?
Not true at all. Those are the things that make him a better football player.
How many PB for Art Monk? John Stallworth? Lynn Swann? Don Maynard?What do these guys all have in common with Ward? SB history.
Terrell Davis probably has the best post season resume of anyone . . . and that hasn't helped him much as o yet.I get that Ward is hard to put in a specific box. He won't rank high on some traditional lists or accolades and his best attributes are a bit outside-of-the-box compared to several others. Ward has averaged 5.2 catches, 69 yards, and 0.6 TD per game in the post season. I would have to crunch some numbers to see how that stacks up to some other receivers.
Just referencing guys from your list above...Postseason Leaders in receptions
Even if you only look at the guys who have played in a comparable number of playoff games (Harrison, Wayne, Reed for example), he still looks pretty good by comparison. If you look at per game #s, he fares pretty well against many of the guys who have played in fewer games, despite the larger sample size. Also, bear in mind that of his 17 playoff games, he was a virtual non-factor in two of them because of the injury suffered in the '09 AFCC that limited him tremendously in that game and the SB against Arizona, so those aggregate numbers look even better considering they were achieved basically in 15 games, not 17.
Ha! You wanted statistical evidence of Hines Ward's HOF legitimacy, there it is. What is more important than the postseason? Hines leads your elite list of WR in three of four postseason stat categories.My point is that Hines Ward will eventually get into the HOF for the same reasons Steelers WR before him were selected. Postseason dominance.
It's easy to post better numbers when you play 3-4 times the games than other players.You are right, though, if Ward makes it in it will be because voters have a bias for otherwise good but not elite PIT wide receivers.
Ward stacks up very favorably on a post season per-game basis with all of the WRs of his generation that people in this thread are suggesting are a lock while Ward should stay out. Larry Fitz is heads and shoulders above him (and everyone) in pergame avgs, but besides that Ward is at or very near the top in per-game and career postseason totals. Postseason #s onlyPlayer Rec / Yards / TDs (per game)R Moss 3.92 / 72.1 /.83 M Harrison 4.06 / 55.2 / .13T Owens 4.9 / 68.2 / .45Torry Holt 4.7 / 63 / .40Isaac Bruce 4.9 / 84 / .44Larry Fitz 7 / 117.5 / 1.5Reggie Wayne 4.88 / 66.4 / .53Tim Brown 3.75 / 48.4 / .25Hines Ward 5.17 / 69.4 / .59
The question really isn't so much what we should look at, but what they do look at. Judging by a lot of the players that are/aren't in, I would say the Hall places a tremendous (IMO, too much so) premium on postseason success/excellence. And as illustrated above, Ward stacks up very well against his peers in that category. Not even just statistically, but he has a Super Bowl MVP award. That counts for an awful lot in the eyes of the voters.Add to this the intangibles, and the career milestones, and it adds up to a guy who's likely to draw a lot of support. It seems like a lot of people in this thread are arguing that he SHOULDN'T be a HOFer, whereas I'm simply trying to illustrate why I think he WILL be.
Not always. Just because NFL commentators say something a lot doesn't mean that voters are dumb enough to swallow it. Ray Lewis is often called the best leader in sports. Does that perception also equal reality?
I disagree.
Are you also ready then to put David Givens in the Hall? He won two rings with the Patriots, and was a key playoff contributor (he caught a TD pass in 7 straight NE playoff games, including two straight Super Bowls!).
I don't think back then you appreciated how unimpressive 1000 receptions will be in 2017. You may still not, but you didn't then.Plus, can someone tell me why Hines Ward supporters act like he's the only WR on the planet that ever threw a block?'Evilgrin 72 said:atsselfonback:Says he will play out the last two years of his contract too, which even at minimal production will likely land him on about 1050-12700-90. This is the first year he really didn't put up solid stats, and a lot of that has to do more with the fact that the Steelers have younger, more dynamic options at WR rather than the fact that he can't play. They really only use him on short routes where they need to pick up a first down or kill clock these days, but he's still a fairly effective option.
Sure it is...Pitt, Indy, and NE ruled the AFC for much of the first decade in the 21st Century...it shows a guy that plays in a run heavy offense much of his career doing amazing things in the playoffs vs arguably the best WR in the league during that time...why would it not be revealing AM? Honestly you don't have to answer but I think FF makes a lot of sense and I found the stats pretty telling.
Excellent points EG
The debate isn't all about numbers. These are the main components (not necessarily in this order, and all for both regular season and postseason):1. Statistics (for those positions with meaningful statistics)
It seems that you are saying that neither Cris Carter or Tim Brown will be in the HOF. IMO both are locks.
There is no formulaic answer. The answer is, it depends. Context must be applied. A player with lesser numbers could be judged to have had more meaningful playoff performances if he made crucial, memorable, and/or clutch plays that led to Super Bowl wins. Lynn Swann comes to mind. Or a player who performed well despite having a serious injury.
Do you think he SHOULD be in the HOF?
Brown has been eligible for three years now and hasn't gotten in. Every year that goes by his career numbers look less and less impressive. It's going to be a close call for him.
Yes, but I'm admittedly biased, so take that with a grain of salt. I think he stands out at his position as a leader and a real football player in an era when so many WRs were/are "gimme gimme" attention whores. I mean, how many teams have Terrell Owens and Randy Moss played on between them, when they're maybe the two most talented receivers not named Jerry Rice to ever set foot on a field? How many teams has Ward played for? Do you think that's a coincidence?
I think it is a convenient stance to take that the reason most in this forum and thread have said Ward doesn't deserve it is because it is a fantasy football message board, and thus everyone is biased to one way of thinking. Taking this stance allows you to simply dismiss other opinions as being invalid. There has been plenty of intelligent discussion of factors other than statistics in this thread, and I see few, if any, posters who are "blinded" by statistics in this discussion.The simple fact is that statistics are the best proxy of greatness for players in many sports, including pro football at some positions, including WR. It is a proxy, so it isn't perfect and it isn't wholly inclusive of all relevant factors. But it is easily the closest proxy to greatness. Honors and awards are helpful, but typically are similar to the statistics. While winning is an important factor, is not a good proxy by itself... most of the players on all the playoff and Super Bowl teams in NFL history were not great players.That is why numbers are discussed so much in HOF discussions. You'd see the exact same thing reflected in a discussion of Ward's HOF chances in any other forum that isn't Steelers based (or maybe Georgia based).
Here's another classic deflection argument, which amounts to "I know what I'm talking about and you don't". How arrogant.
, JWB.
Here's another classic deflection argument, which amounts to "You and I disagree, but instead of discussing why we disagree I'll attempt to attach a negative label to you so others think my opinion is better than yours".That's only fair, no?
It's not arrogant, it's a byproduct of having played the game and understanding that a player with tremendous talent and a horrible attitude is often more trouble than he's worth. I'm not referring to anyone in particular, but if you were an NFL GM and could see into those player's futures, you would draft Moss or Owens over Ward, knowing you'd get a few years out of the guy at best before he burned his bridges on the way out of town? I notice that while discussing "greatness", you haven't addressed the fact that Moss and Owens were cast from team to team while Ward has stayed with one. You honestly don't think the fact that something like 7 NFL teams flat-out cut or traded those two guys illustrates that simply posting big numbers REALLY doesn't capture what value a player brings to a team, and that it will be a major factor when determining Hall votes?
Yes, you need to reread the thread. I've been discussing the disagreement in this thread since its inception almost six years ago.And I didn't attach a "negative label" to EG's post, I called it what it was. To say that if anyone else doesn't agree with his post, they don't know football is arrogant.
I have never said he won't be considered. The question isn't whether he will be considered, it's whether he will get in. Do you see the difference?I've been following the NFL for longer than 15 years. And I've never said it's a mathematical or statistical exercise. In fact, I've posted numerous times that it requires consideration of multiple factors, with the application of judgment and context. Like I said, maybe you should reread the thread.
I never commented on this hypothetical, because it's irrelevant to this discussion. Unless you think Owens and/or Moss will not make the HOF.Do you think Owens will be inducted into the HOF? Do you think Moss will be inducted into the HOF? If you think either of them will not be inducted, I think you're wrong and you are on an island there. If you think they will be inducted, why is this relevant?I do think players who spend their careers with one team, particularly one of the league's leading franchises like Pittsburgh, get a small boost, due to the fact that it means that player is likely more well known (more games on TV, more media coverage, etc.). That said, I doubt that has ever made the difference in a player making the HOF who otherwise would not have made it.And I think bad behavior/character shown by players can be a negative, but it's a minimal factor. I am not aware of any player who likely would have made it if not for bad behavior/character.If you have examples of players who fit either profile (getting in based on intangibles or due to staying on one team and/or not getting in due to bad behavior/character despite having elite level statistics, honors, and awards), I'm interested in seeing them.
Because a great number of people in this thread, yourself among them, I believe, have contended that Ward will not make the Hall because he is surpassed by too many of his contemporaries. I'm asserting that perhaps these contemporaries have not surpassed him at all, or if they have, by much less than mere statistics would illustrate.If you really think it's irrelevant to a player's HOF candidacy to say "as an NFL GM, I'd have much rather drafted Ward than Moss", for example, then I guess we're just looking at it in two entirely different ways. I don't know that I could look at a player's entire career and say something to the effect of : "Well, I'd have much rather had Ward on my team than Moss, all things considered, but damn it, Moss did score a lot of TDs, I'm voting for him instead." The stat hounds will gape at that and think it unfathomable to vote in a guy with 85 TDs over a guy with 150, but I personally tend to look more at the player's overall value to his team than I do raw #s. I think that's the difference between being an ex-player and being a stat geek. I'm both, while I think most here are just the latter. That's all I was saying earlier in the comment that you found arrogant (perhaps it was not phrased gently.)
