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!
Problem with that is the HOF voters don't appear to assign much credit to those things, at least relative to other metrics.But more importantly, why would you want to "take longevity out of the equation?" Longevity plays an ENORMOUS role in who gets into the HOF.
Jason has hit the biggest problem I have with ANY HOF induction process. Far too often, career totals matter more than peak production. Players will play a few more seasons with FAR INFERIOR production levels, often time BELOW the league norm yet get huge bonus points for ranking higher in key categories by the time they are done.For example, Jerome Bettis backers will point to his career numbers and how he won a ring and how that makes him a lock as a HOF RB. Yet over his last 4 seasons, his production levels were nowhere near worthy of HOF numbers (he had a 3.5 ypc over those 4 seasons). The year the Steelers won the title, he had a 3.3 ypc and was essentially a bit player on the team (he didn't even start a game in the regular season).But that title (as a cog and not a big contributor) and those 2,786 yards rushing make him go from someone not with great credentials as a HOFer to suddenly being considered a lock (at least by some folks). Those 4 years (with an average of less than 700 yards per season) bump him up from the Top 25 to the Top 5 in rushing yards. Does anyone really think that in those 4 years Bettis exhibited HOF skills or production? Without those 4 years added in, would many people would have felt that Bettis would have garnered much HOF consideration? But COMBINING two likely "NOs" to those questions somehow gets him in. Go figure.
I heard that Jim Kelly once farted during a Super Bowl. Reports are that it didn't affect the outcome of the game.And Kerry Collins had the hiccups for a few minutes in '99.Any other bodily functions we'd like to overreact to? Over-sweating? goose bumps?
"Wide right" down?
For example, I think a guy who played six years, and was truly great, always being one of the absolute best at his position, is definitely more HoF-worthy than a guy who played 12 years, but was never really great (ranging from good to very good). However, the Hall is so obsessed with longevity, that it is essentially rewards compilers, and keeps out some really great players who didn't have long careers.Except when it's not - Lynn Swann anyone? The HoF's biggest problem is that it has no set criteria, so popularity seems to play as big of a role as anything else. That's especially a problem in a sport like football where different positions and different schemes and different roles make it very difficult to evaluate performance based off of statistics, unlike baseball for example.For example, I think a guy who played six years, and was truly great, always being one of the absolute best at his position, is definitely more HoF-worthy than a guy who played 12 years, but was never really great (ranging from good to very good).
However, the Hall is so obsessed with longevity, that it is essentially rewards compilers, and keeps out some really great players who didn't have long careers.
The thing that people tend to forget about Bettis is that he did in fact have elite peak performance early in his career. He was 1st team All Pro twice and 2nd team All Pro once. Combining that with the numbers and ring, along with the relative rarity of "big backs" achieving longevity, makes him worthy. Without those All Pro seasons, I would agree with you.ETA: In addition to those All Pro selections, consider that Bettis was #2 in rushing yards in the NFL during his first 10 seasons (through age 30), behind only Emmitt Smith. Yes, he compiled some more statistics after that, but he had already performed quite well, and he played an important role for his team during those last 3 years.
What players played 6 truly great years and no others? Or, more generally, which players do you see as having been deserving but kept out because they did not compile sufficient numbers?For example, I think a guy who played six years, and was truly great, always being one of the absolute best at his position, is definitely more HoF-worthy than a guy who played 12 years, but was never really great (ranging from good to very good). However, the Hall is so obsessed with longevity, that it is essentially rewards compilers, and keeps out some really great players who didn't have long careers.
If it's through 10 seasons, Bettis ranks 9th in terms of yardage. If it's through age 30, then he ranks 8th in yardage.
I don't necessarily think it's a problem that there's no set criteria. Actually, I like it. We can't just sit around and say, "Once this RB hits X yards, he's a HOFer." You actually have to evaluate some things. It at least makes for great conversation.
I think that's a great reason why not having a set criteria is a good thing...because a set criteria doesn't work in football. Testaverde's 46,000 passing yards are completely different than Manning's 45,000 passing yards. A set criteria would put the two in the same boat.
You misunderstood. I probably phrased that poorly. I was pointing out that from 1993 to 2002, Bettis's first 10 seasons in the NFL, he was second only to Emmitt in rushing yards. I was just attempting to further show that Bettis was not merely a compiler. But what you have shown - that he was #8 in rushing yards through 10 seasons and #9 in rushing yards through age 30 - is further evidence that he is deserving, and seems to dispel your compiler issue.
You're assuming that by "set criteria" I'm talking about a single metric. I'm not. Using the comparison you made, I'd never look at the number of passing yards, alone, without also looking at number of years and starts, pass attempts, etc.
While I don't disagree, I'd like to note that my QB rating system specifically prevents this from happening. So you should like that :( .
Like with all players, there are various numbers to look at. Even ranking in the Top 10 in rushing through age 30 or through 10 seasons, he had very low TD totals, a so-so ypc compared to the other guys above and around him, and was pretty limited in the receiving game. None of those would help his HOF cause any. So yes, his rushing totals were solid but the rest not so much.And BTW, I am more of an advocate of comparing players' peak or best years rather than factoring seasons where they weren't starting or later years where they were used sparingly. Compare ssy their top 5 seasons and then see where they rank (with the other career totals used after that for comparison).
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you meant a single metric I just didn't feel like typing more than that.I also don't think it would be good if there was a set criteria of 35,000 yards, 250 TDs, 100 wins, 5 playoff appearences, 1 All Pro selection, and winning percentage > 0.500. No matter how many variables you want to throw into a set criteria, and no matter what those variables are, I think it's a bad idea in football even for the positions we have a lot of good stats for.I think the stats are a huge part of making a HOF decision. But, so is the reason for the stats and the things that aren't measured in stats.
I don't really have a problem with your rating system and it does bring certain guys to the forefront that otherwise may not have.
You might want to look up "fame" in the dictionary.I think right now McNabb is ahead of most of the second-tier of recent or active candidates: Bledsoe, Collins, Testaverde, McNair, Green. Warner is probably ahead of him, especially if Arizona gets any farther this year. That said, McNabb will need more accomplishments to make it. He appears to have the opportunity, though. Remember that he also has more rushing yardage and TDs than any of the others listed. You can't get in on what-ifs, but McNabb would probably have won an All-Pro in 2002 if he didn't break his leg (and score four TDs on it). He was on track for 4300+ total yards and 35+ TDs, with only 6 INTs through 10 games. He was definitely one of the best couple of QBs in the league that year.
Thanks genius, I'll check out that dictionary definition. While I'm at it, I'll go ahead and offer up Conrad Dobler as a "famous" player who should be inducted. You see what I did there? As for your argument, you were doing fine up to (and including) the part that I bolded.
What puts McNabb ahead of Green and McNair? Green had a longer peak and McNair had more solid years. I think they're all on the same level.
McNabb has 2 more Pro Bowls than McNair, and McNair has never thrown for even 25 TDs or 3400 yards. I really don't think McNair is even close to McNabb.Green had a total of 4 good years; how is that a longer peak? McNabb's 2000-2004 is better than any 5-year segment of Green's career, and McNabb's 2008 is better than any season outside of Green's peak.
Trent Green doesn't even belong in the conversation. Show me what he has done in his career that stands out as extraordinary. McNair is a guy who never had the stats but always brought the game. I think he's a pretty good comparison to McNabb on a lot of levels.
I agree you can't get in on what-ifs, but I think they should be part of the decision. When so many people pretty much only look at numbers, what-ifs have to factor in. Again, Testaverde and Manning have very similar passing yardage. Let's say Manning retires today. Some will say, "Manning passing yardage is better than Testaverde's because he played fewer years." That's no different than saying, "What if Manning played more years." "What if" tends to sound like excuse-making but it's really no different than analyzing the data further.Of course, you have to be sensible. Nobody should say, "Bo Jackson is a HOFer because he would have had awesome stats if he didn't play baseball and hadn't been hurt." It can't be your main point of argument.
I agree that I wouldn't include Green, but excluding their won/loss % (which is tough to ignore).McNabb3500 yard passing seasons: 24000 yard passing seasons: 020 TD passing seasons: 425 TD passing seasons: 2Career QB Rating: 85.9YPA: 6.8Green3500 yard passing seasons: 54000 yard passing seasons: 320 TD passing seasons: 425 TD passing seasons: 2Career QB Rating: 86.0YPA: 7.6
You're ignoring Green's '00 season, which while it was short, was extraordinary for what it was. Green also played 16 games every year for five straight years. He ranked in the top five in ANY/A for four straight years and five overall; McNabb only ranked in the top five twice.Green had five really good seasons, way better than any five of McNabb's best seasons. Donovan simply has the longevity on him and maybe the best #1 season.As for McNair, it's a more complicated case, but I think they're very similar.
12 years among the best at your position, even if never #1...is more then a little bit impressive.McNabb is defnately NOT in if he were hanging it up today. But with another 5 years of similar production, 2 or 3 more playoff appearences and a Super-Bowl appearance? He'd be in fairly easily.How many QB's have been considered among the best for 10 straight years? And still rolling strong?Many of the stats bandied around are confusing, misleading, or just plan unfair. With an inferior recieving cast...why does completion % count AGAINST McNabb? Doesn't that make his Td/Int ratio even MORE impressive? Don't QB's with solid running games and good to great defenses typically pass for fewer yards?AR's system is the most pass-happy in the league...but it's anything BUT a vertical passing game. It emphasizes short quick throws, MANY of them to Rb's and Te's as a substitution for the running game. As a reslt, McNabb's yarsd per attempt necessarily suffer.In the end...he's a winner. He's carried his team at times (despite the choker label) and has always had good to great production.He's not in right now...but with another 4-5 years of similar production...yes...he'd be a lock, and deservedly so.
In 10 seasons, McNabb's ranked Top 10 in passing yards twice, passing TD 4 times, and YPA twice. Couldn't many other QBs make that claim prodcutivity wise?As for the "4-5 years of similar production," I would hope a guy that started for 15 years would garner serious consideration and have decent totals.
His yards per completion should suffer, but not his yards per attempt. That's pretty consistent across systems.In Reid's WCO, you might have 10 completions for 100 yards, but you can complete most of those passes. 10/14 for 100 yards is the same as a guy in a vertical offense who goes 7 or 8/14 with 100 yards. And McNabb had a very high Y/A year, which shows you can do so in Reid's system.
Green's 5 best seasons: 20319 total yards, 121 total TD, 63 INTMcNabb's best 5 seasons: 19438 total yards, 132 total TD, 55 INTLooks pretty comparable, statistically. And McNabb's teams did better; Green had a winning record in only two of those seasons and made the playoffs only once (and lost in the first round), while McNabb had a winning record and made the playoffs in all 5 years.And outside those 5 seasons, McNabb's resume is clearly better.
How many playoff appearences in those ten years? And with a crappy supporting cast.Isn't taht what the QBs supposed to do? Tops in passing is hugely overrated. Brees' team was 8-8 this year. And with more talent at reciever than Mcnabb's ever had.
The trouble is, you were originally arguing that McNabb was ahead of Green. Now you are arguing that he's comparable.
Am I the only one who remembers those KC teams for what they were? No defense, high powered offense, never amounted to anything. Trent Green was an awesome fantasy QB. As an NFL QB he hasn't achieved squat.
He doesn't appear in many top 10s at the end of the season because hasn't played too many full seasons. He's only played in 14+ games six times. In his 10 seasons, he's been top 10 in passing yards per game 6 times. Take out his rookie season when he only started 4 of his 12 games, and that's 6 out of 9 seasons. Then you also have to consider that he would take off and run much more often early in his career. That tends to lower passing yards and passing TDs. His running is a dimension that shouldn't be ignored when comparing to other QBs.
The point was that for McNabb and everyone else that there are countless ways to compare players and many ways to assess and analyze statistics. As for McNabb, there seems to be a lot of ways to argue that he hasn't earned a spot in the HOF yet.
I'm not really sure what years you were using, but using Green's best five years as '00, '02, '03, '04 and '05, I get:2296 attempts, 18,397 yards, 110 TD, 57 INTs, 134 sacks, 847 sack yards lost.Using McNabb's best five years as his last five years, I get:2186 attempts, 16,269 yards, 107 TD, 41 INT, 139 sacks, 820 sack yards lost.The numbers look closer than they really are, though. Here's how I'd rank the seasons:Green 2003 / McNabb 2004 -- both terrific yearsGreen '02, '04 and '05 /McNabb '06 -- all very good yearsGreen '00 -- very nice yearThen a noticeable drop, until you get to McNabb's '05, '07 and '08.That's ignoring what McNabb did as a runner, and that's not really fair. That's why I think it's very close, and not clear edge for Green. But you can't ignore the fact that McNabb has one great season and one very good season to his name, and a bunch of good years. Not exactly HOF material in my book.
Uh, that's kind of the point. He carried a team that had no defense whatsoever. And he was a big part of why a team with no WRs had a high powered offense. He didn't exactly have the luxury of Jim Johnson.
I don't think McNabb is HOF material at this point, but I think his case is much stronger than Green's. Besides, at age 32, Green had just 13K yards and less than 100 TDs; McNabb will end up high on the all-time lists by the time he's done.
He didn't carry them anywhere. I don't think they even won a single playoff game. If you put Green on par with McNabb, then Drew Brees and Daunte Culpepper are on the same level. Heck, Aaron Brooks looks similar by your criteria. The thing that gives McNabb a chance at the hall (and makes him stand out over the guys listed above), is that he looks pretty good under just about any measurement you use except rings - and his playoff success could cancel that out.
He took over a team that had the #9 offense under Elvis Grbac, and led it to the #16 offense in his first year. KC's offensive success had a lot more to do with Gonzo and Priest than Green.
I would argue that Brees is at least as good a QB as McNabb is right now (actually better, IMO), and it's a good example of how the "wins" statistic is just as misleading as stats. A QB can only do so much to help a team win. Put Brees on Baltimore or Pittsburgh, and he's going to have a lot more than 8 wins. Put Ben Roethlisberger on the Lions and they're still not going to win more than a few games. As you mentioned earlier, give McNabb a ring and he's a no doubter in the eyes of HOF voters. So had the Patriots come out flat in that SB, maybe turn the ball over a couple more times or have their camcorder malfunction... BOOM, he's an instant hall of famer, despite not being any better of a QB for it. But HOF voters put a lot of stock in that ring. I think he'll get in, provided he goes a few more seasons. He's got the charisma and name recognition to go along with the boarderline numbers and accomplishments.
Yes, and then the next four years they were always a dominant offense. In those four years the Chiefs D never finished in the top 3/4 of the league.Green was a stud QB for four years, McNabb was a stud QB for one and a half. McNabb certainly has longevity on Green, and his top season was probably better than Green's top year; but I don't see how you can argue that McNabb at his peak was as good a QB as Trent Green was. And "peak" isn't one year.
I already showed that McNabb was as good a QB in his best 5 seasons as Green--except that McNabb's team was actually successful. All your analysis has ignored McNabb's running, which is a huge part of why he's a better QB than Green.
