Is Hines Ward a HOF'er? (2 Viewers)

[GregR_2]

There are times when a guy's #s or his # of Pro Bowl appearances just dont tell the story. The guy's been to the Pro Bowl 4 times that someone here's mentioned. And that's plenty of times, imo considering how many great receivers there are in the NFL, year after year. Most of those other All Pros are in passing Os, and put up big #s. Ward puts up rock solid #s in a running O. And when Pittsburgh needs a big play, he's typically the guy making it. His Superbowl MVP performance is the pure illustration. There are 2 HUGE plays everyone will rememeber from that game. The long completion to Ward from Roeth down close to the goalline, that set up a score. And the long TD pass from Randel-El to Ward that was the pinnacle moment of that championship. He rose to the occasion on the biggest stage. And its not the sole reason for me feeling he's a HOFer, but it sums it up in typical, Hines Ward winner, champion fashion. The guy's a winner to the highest degree, and he plays the game at its highest level of skill with the highest level of passion. If that's not what a HOFer is, then I dont even want to know what one is.

Damn

It's a better posting for lack of HoF reasons than for reasons he should get in. Let's break it down.

The guy's been to the Pro Bowl 4 times that someone here's mentioned. And that's plenty of times, imo considering how many great receivers there are in the NFL, year after year.

So there's so many great receivers, and Hines doesn't do enough to get voted to the Pro Bowl more, but others guys like Moss, Harrison, Owens, Holt, do. Strike against him.

Most of those other All Pros are in passing Os, and put up big #s. Ward puts up rock solid #s in a running O.

The HoF isn't about what you could have done, it's about what you did do. The other WRs put up a lot more than rock solid #s. When that is the best compliment to level at a guy's production by a supporter of his, warning flags should be going up for everyone who isn't a

And when Pittsburgh needs a big play, he's typically the guy making it.

So if you're the best player on your team that's worthy of the Hall? Come on, this isn't even close to being a reason he should be in the hall.

His Superbowl MVP performance is the pure illustration.

Halfway through the post we actually get to one thing that should count towards Hall worthiness. He has a SB ring and he played a significant role in acquiring it. That isn't close to enough, but it's something that goes on the ledger in his favor.

There are 2 HUGE plays everyone will rememeber from that game. The long completion to Ward from Roeth down close to the goalline, that set up a score. And the long TD pass from Randel-El to Ward that was the pinnacle moment of that championship. He rose to the occasion on the biggest stage.

Already added in what contribution the SB should play so this is nothing but fluff now.

The guy's a winner to the highest degree, and he plays the game at its highest level of skill with the highest level of passion. If that's not what a HOFer is, then I dont even want to know what one is.

Again, more fluff. The HoF is for the best of the best. Having a Rudi-esque heart doesn't make you worthy. HoF resumes are built on accomplishments. Heart may go towards getting those accomplishments, but you still have to have them. In discussing the best WRs of his era you go through at least 5 before his name even becomes a distant blip on the radar screen. That is not HoF worthy. His numbers are not HoF worthy. 1 SB and the MVP for the game does not make him HoF worthy.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Ward "feels" like a HOF-er, but doesn't have the numbers just yet. He's a guy who, because of his leadership ability, toughness, blocking prowess, etc... is not going to need the numbers some others might in order to get in. Say, for instance, that somehow Ward and Moss retire with identical receiving numbers. There's no doubt Ward gets in before Moss.

Now, Ward's #s don't compare to Moss, TO, or Harrison, but I don't think they have to. They just have to be HOF-worthy, in that voters can justify voting for him. If you look at his game, it's based on toughness, route running, and good hands, rather than speed or quickness. I believe this will allow him to be productive later in his career, as the quickness is usually the first thing to fade (does anyone doubt Ward would be more productive at 34 than say, Santana Moss?) It really depends on how long he wants to play. Let's say he plays 4 more seasons and averages something like 75-900-6 over the course of those 4 years (very reasonable estimates, IMO.) You're looking at career numbers of 1005-12212-88. That, to me, would be enough for voters looking at the complete player to say - "his stats are good enough."

 

[CalBear]

If Hines plays a couple more years at this level, and there's no reason to think he won't... In the # of years played he will have put up more yards, more TDs, and more recepions than Michael Irvin. Yes, Irvin has more rings than Ward, but Ward does have the SBMVP.For those of you saying no to Hines: Does Irvin belong?

Hines Ward has played in 151 games, and has 705 receptions for 8612 yards and 64 TDs. Michael Irvin played in 159 games, and has 750 receptions for 11904 yards and 65 TDs. Irvin was top-2 in the league in receiving yards 3 times, and he was top-10 5 times. The best Ward has ever done is #4, and he's only been top-10 twice.So do you think playing more games at a lower level is equivalent to playing fewer games at a higher level in terms of HOF consideration? Because I don't.

 

[CalBear]

I believe this will allow him to be productive later in his career, as the quickness is usually the first thing to fade (does anyone doubt Ward would be more productive at 34 than say, Santana Moss?)

He's already less productive, at 31, than Joey Galloway is, at 36.

 

[slayer666]

Ward "feels" like a HOF-er, but doesn't have the numbers just yet. He's a guy who, because of his leadership ability, toughness, blocking prowess, etc... is not going to need the numbers some others might in order to get in. Say, for instance, that somehow Ward and Moss retire with identical receiving numbers. There's no doubt Ward gets in before Moss.Now, Ward's #s don't compare to Moss, TO, or Harrison, but I don't think they have to. They just have to be HOF-worthy, in that voters can justify voting for him. If you look at his game, it's based on toughness, route running, and good hands, rather than speed or quickness. I believe this will allow him to be productive later in his career, as the quickness is usually the first thing to fade (does anyone doubt Ward would be more productive at 34 than say, Santana Moss?) It really depends on how long he wants to play. Let's say he plays 4 more seasons and averages something like 75-900-6 over the course of those 4 years (very reasonable estimates, IMO.) You're looking at career numbers of 1005-12212-88. That, to me, would be enough for voters looking at the complete player to say - "his stats are good enough."

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

If Hines plays a couple more years at this level, and there's no reason to think he won't... In the # of years played he will have put up more yards, more TDs, and more recepions than Michael Irvin. Yes, Irvin has more rings than Ward, but Ward does have the SBMVP.For those of you saying no to Hines: Does Irvin belong?

Hines Ward has played in 151 games, and has 705 receptions for 8612 yards and 64 TDs. Michael Irvin played in 159 games, and has 750 receptions for 11904 yards and 65 TDs. Irvin was top-2 in the league in receiving yards 3 times, and he was top-10 5 times. The best Ward has ever done is #4, and he's only been top-10 twice.So do you think playing more games at a lower level is equivalent to playing fewer games at a higher level in terms of HOF consideration? Because I don't.

Spin it how you want. It took Irvin 12 seasons to get those #s. Ward is very, very close to him with 2 less years in the league. The fact that Irvin either couldn't break the starting lineup or was injured more frequently (I don't know what the story was early in his career) is not a point in his favor IMO.

 

[dgreen]

The more I read this thread and I look into Ward, the more I move towards voting Yes. As others have said, though, his career isn't over. This can go either way the next few years.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I believe this will allow him to be productive later in his career, as the quickness is usually the first thing to fade (does anyone doubt Ward would be more productive at 34 than say, Santana Moss?)

He's already less productive, at 31, than Joey Galloway is, at 36.

You're taking one example of someone who's speed has defied aging. You can talk Jerry Rice too, but these guys are the exception, not the rule. I can easily see Ward maintaining his current #s until he's 35 or 36, though - which would be enough to give him 1000+ reception, 12,000+ yards, and almost 100 TDs. Those numbers don't look so bad to a HOF voter when you consider his other significant contributions (again, the WHOLE player should be looked at here, not just stats) and the fact that he will have played almost his entire career in a run-first (HEAVILY so) offense.

 

[dgreen]

(again, the WHOLE player should be looked at here, not just stats)

gllllllllllllllll

 

[twitch]

There are times when a guy's #s or his # of Pro Bowl appearances just dont tell the story. The guy's been to the Pro Bowl 4 times that someone here's mentioned. And that's plenty of times, imo considering how many great receivers there are in the NFL, year after year. Most of those other All Pros are in passing Os, and put up big #s. Ward puts up rock solid #s in a running O. And when Pittsburgh needs a big play, he's typically the guy making it. His Superbowl MVP performance is the pure illustration. There are 2 HUGE plays everyone will rememeber from that game. The long completion to Ward from Roeth down close to the goalline, that set up a score. And the long TD pass from Randel-El to Ward that was the pinnacle moment of that championship. He rose to the occasion on the biggest stage. And its not the sole reason for me feeling he's a HOFer, but it sums it up in typical, Hines Ward winner, champion fashion. The guy's a winner to the highest degree, and he plays the game at its highest level of skill with the highest level of passion. If that's not what a HOFer is, then I dont even want to know what one is.

Damn

It's a better posting for lack of HoF reasons than for reasons he should get in. Let's break it down.

The guy's been to the Pro Bowl 4 times that someone here's mentioned. And that's plenty of times, imo considering how many great receivers there are in the NFL, year after year.

So there's so many great receivers, and Hines doesn't do enough to get voted to the Pro Bowl more, but others guys like Moss, Harrison, Owens, Holt, do. Strike against him.

Most of those other All Pros are in passing Os, and put up big #s. Ward puts up rock solid #s in a running O.

The HoF isn't about what you could have done, it's about what you did do. The other WRs put up a lot more than rock solid #s. When that is the best compliment to level at a guy's production by a supporter of his, warning flags should be going up for everyone who isn't a

And when Pittsburgh needs a big play, he's typically the guy making it.

So if you're the best player on your team that's worthy of the Hall? Come on, this isn't even close to being a reason he should be in the hall.

His Superbowl MVP performance is the pure illustration.

Halfway through the post we actually get to one thing that should count towards Hall worthiness. He has a SB ring and he played a significant role in acquiring it. That isn't close to enough, but it's something that goes on the ledger in his favor.

There are 2 HUGE plays everyone will rememeber from that game. The long completion to Ward from Roeth down close to the goalline, that set up a score. And the long TD pass from Randel-El to Ward that was the pinnacle moment of that championship. He rose to the occasion on the biggest stage.

Already added in what contribution the SB should play so this is nothing but fluff now.

The guy's a winner to the highest degree, and he plays the game at its highest level of skill with the highest level of passion. If that's not what a HOFer is, then I dont even want to know what one is.

Again, more fluff. The HoF is for the best of the best. Having a Rudi-esque heart doesn't make you worthy. HoF resumes are built on accomplishments. Heart may go towards getting those accomplishments, but you still have to have them. In discussing the best WRs of his era you go through at least 5 before his name even becomes a distant blip on the radar screen. That is not HoF worthy. His numbers are not HoF worthy. 1 SB and the MVP for the game does not make him HoF worthy.

Why in God's name would I need to 'fluff' Hines Ward? Im a New England fan. But Ive seen a ton of this guy's games, and my eyes dont lie. The #s just dont tell the story with this football player. Randy Moss is a WR. Torry Holt is a WR. Marvin Harrison is a WR. Hines Ward is a football player. That's an intangible set of qualities that not all players possess. Some guys just catch the ball and run with it. Others lead. Others inspire. Others exude greatness and contribute in far more ways than just catching and running. They are the epitome of team players. Hines Ward is the textbook example. And not everyone gets this. Break it down any way you want to. But intangible, HOF qualities are hard to measure. But if you honestly ask me who's more of a HOFer, Torry Holt or Hines Ward? Im taking Ward all day in that debate. And it wouldnt even be close. Im not dealing with hypotheticals here. Im dealing with reality. He's been a better football player. Obviously Moss, Owens and Harrison are likely first ballot guys. Their achievements and credentials speak for themselves.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

If Hines plays a couple more years at this level, and there's no reason to think he won't... In the # of years played he will have put up more yards, more TDs, and more recepions than Michael Irvin. Yes, Irvin has more rings than Ward, but Ward does have the SBMVP.For those of you saying no to Hines: Does Irvin belong?

Hines Ward has played in 151 games, and has 705 receptions for 8612 yards and 64 TDs. Michael Irvin played in 159 games, and has 750 receptions for 11904 yards and 65 TDs. Irvin was top-2 in the league in receiving yards 3 times, and he was top-10 5 times. The best Ward has ever done is #4, and he's only been top-10 twice.So do you think playing more games at a lower level is equivalent to playing fewer games at a higher level in terms of HOF consideration? Because I don't.

Spin it how you want. It took Irvin 12 seasons to get those #s. Ward is very, very close to him with 2 less years in the league. The fact that Irvin either couldn't break the starting lineup or was injured more frequently (I don't know what the story was early in his career) is not a point in his favor IMO.

Also consider that in the next 8 games Ward plays (giving them each 159 games played), he's very likely to pass Irvin in both receptions and TDs.

 

[Sheriff66]

If Hines plays a couple more years at this level, and there's no reason to think he won't... In the # of years played he will have put up more yards, more TDs, and more recepions than Michael Irvin. Yes, Irvin has more rings than Ward, but Ward does have the SBMVP.For those of you saying no to Hines: Does Irvin belong?

Hines Ward has played in 151 games, and has 705 receptions for 8612 yards and 64 TDs. Michael Irvin played in 159 games, and has 750 receptions for 11904 yards and 65 TDs. Irvin was top-2 in the league in receiving yards 3 times, and he was top-10 5 times. The best Ward has ever done is #4, and he's only been top-10 twice.So do you think playing more games at a lower level is equivalent to playing fewer games at a higher level in terms of HOF consideration? Because I don't.

Didn't Irvin have a HOF QB throwing to him ? Hines has had Stewart, Maddox most of his career

 

[Evilgrin 72]

(again, the WHOLE player should be looked at here, not just stats)

gllllllllllllllll

Really? Then how do you make a case for Michael Irvin being in the HOF over Art Monk?Irvin 750-11904-65Monk 940-12721-68

 

[GregR_2]

I believe this will allow him to be productive later in his career, as the quickness is usually the first thing to fade (does anyone doubt Ward would be more productive at 34 than say, Santana Moss?)

He's already less productive, at 31, than Joey Galloway is, at 36.

You're taking one example of someone who's speed has defied aging. You can talk Jerry Rice too, but these guys are the exception, not the rule. I can easily see Ward maintaining his current #s until he's 35 or 36, though - which would be enough to give him 1000+ reception, 12,000+ yards, and almost 100 TDs. Those numbers don't look so bad to a HOF voter when you consider his other significant contributions (again, the WHOLE player should be looked at here, not just stats) and the fact that he will have played almost his entire career in a run-first (HEAVILY so) offense.

You guys are giving way too much emphasis to his blocking. Make that a capital WAY. Yes he's a better blocker than most WRs and that should be taken into account. But the emphasis that keeps being given to it is like he invented the concept of WRs blocking or something. There are other WRs who block well. There are other elite WRs who block well. It needs to be taken into account in favor of Ward but it is something that can take a truly borderline HoF candidate and give him the extra push over the fence.Ward isn't even borderline unless he plays at an elite WR level in a couple of his remaining years. If you can't be amongst the top 5 of your position peers you'd better be a key contributer in a dynasty to get in. Either the Steelers need to rack up 2-3 more SBs or he needs to top the league in receiving for a couple years.

 

[dgreen]

(again, the WHOLE player should be looked at here, not just stats)

gllllllllllllllll

Really? Then how do you make a case for Michael Irvin being in the HOF over Art Monk?Irvin 750-11904-65Monk 940-12721-68

Hi, I'm new here. glllllllllllllll = good luck, right?I was just trying to say, "Good luck getting some people in the Shark Pool to look at more than stats."

 

[dgreen]

If Hines plays a couple more years at this level, and there's no reason to think he won't... In the # of years played he will have put up more yards, more TDs, and more recepions than Michael Irvin. Yes, Irvin has more rings than Ward, but Ward does have the SBMVP.For those of you saying no to Hines: Does Irvin belong?

Hines Ward has played in 151 games, and has 705 receptions for 8612 yards and 64 TDs. Michael Irvin played in 159 games, and has 750 receptions for 11904 yards and 65 TDs. Irvin was top-2 in the league in receiving yards 3 times, and he was top-10 5 times. The best Ward has ever done is #4, and he's only been top-10 twice.So do you think playing more games at a lower level is equivalent to playing fewer games at a higher level in terms of HOF consideration? Because I don't.

Spin it how you want. It took Irvin 12 seasons to get those #s. Ward is very, very close to him with 2 less years in the league. The fact that Irvin either couldn't break the starting lineup or was injured more frequently (I don't know what the story was early in his career) is not a point in his favor IMO.

Also consider that in the next 8 games Ward plays (giving them each 159 games played), he's very likely to pass Irvin in both receptions and TDs.

Irvin after 151 games: 728/11548/62Irvin didn't have a very productive final 8 games (the 8th only being about a quarter or so, I believe) so Ward can easily catch him in receptions and TDs.

 

[dgreen]

Either the Steelers need to rack up 2-3 more SBs or he needs to top the league in receiving for a couple years.

Well, that's not going to happen. And, you can't necessarily blame that on Ward. Ward's teams have an average ranking of 23.3 in pass attempts in a season. The highest ranking was 10th in 2003. He's been on offenses ranking 28, 29, 31 (this year), 32, and 32 in pass attempts. He's a WR on a team that doesn't pass.

 

[Giant Wooden Badger]

I love Hines but right now he's not a HOF'er from a stats perspective. And Irvin shouldn't be in either.

 

[GregR_2]

(again, the WHOLE player should be looked at here, not just stats)

gllllllllllllllll

Really? Then how do you make a case for Michael Irvin being in the HOF over Art Monk?Irvin 750-11904-65Monk 940-12721-68

Hi, I'm new here. glllllllllllllll = good luck, right?I was just trying to say, "Good luck getting some people in the Shark Pool to look at more than stats."

Irvin is in because he is probably correctly perceived as a top receiver of his era by virtue of him ranking 1st, 1st, 2nd, and 4th in receiving yards in different seasons, and because he was one of the key members of a 3 time SB winning dynasty. Introduce 3 other receivers to trump him in each of those seasons and have the Cowboys lose in the first round and he wouldn't be in there.Ward has 1 SB which helps him but is far from being part of a dynasty. He only has 1 season where he could have been considered near the elite at his position. That just isn't enough to judge him as elite amongst his peers, and his total numbers aren't enough to carry the load given that.

 

[Godsbrother]

I was just trying to say, "Good luck getting some people in the Shark Pool to look at more than stats."

This is an incredibly .

 

[dparker713]

This isnt the baseball HOF. The numbers to get in are always moving. So what may look like a decent candicacy now, wont be in 5-8 years. Also, 3-6? players get in every year, its a set range, meaning if there is a certain year with several deserving players, they'll take spots from future classes. There is already a decent enough backlog of borderline players that makes Hines getting in highly unlikely.

 

[Spartans Rule]

You guys are giving way too much emphasis to his blocking. Make that a capital WAY. Yes he's a better blocker than most WRs and that should be taken into account. But the emphasis that keeps being given to it is like he invented the concept of WRs blocking or something. There are other WRs who block well. There are other elite WRs who block well. It needs to be taken into account in favor of Ward but it is something that can take a truly borderline HoF candidate and give him the extra push over the fence.

 

[CalBear]

Either the Steelers need to rack up 2-3 more SBs or he needs to top the league in receiving for a couple years.

Well, that's not going to happen. And, you can't necessarily blame that on Ward. Ward's teams have an average ranking of 23.3 in pass attempts in a season. The highest ranking was 10th in 2003. He's been on offenses ranking 28, 29, 31 (this year), 32, and 32 in pass attempts. He's a WR on a team that doesn't pass.

He is what he is. You can't put people in the Hall based on what they didn't do. Is Kevin Jones going to get in the Hall of Fame because he might have been a top RB if he played for an offense that actually ran the ball? You can't play that game.

 

[The Man Who Met Andy Griffith]

While not known as a deep threat, in my experience he rivals the best when needed. He isn't all that fast (nor is TO), but he has very sure hands and runs good routes.

What? Since when is TO not fast?

Since he entered the league at least, and presumably before that. He has adequate speed, but not elite speed. Strength, lateral quickness, you name it he's got it, but speed is not his game.

Sure he isn't James Jett or Rockot Ismail fast, but he has another gear and rarely if ever gets caught from behind.

You seem to be quibbling. He isn't Randy Moss or Marvin Harrison fast, which was the context of my statement. Both TO and Ward have very adequate football speed for an NFL WR, but neither is a speed guy. That's all I'm saying. I'm a big TO fan.

 

[Spartans Rule]

Either the Steelers need to rack up 2-3 more SBs or he needs to top the league in receiving for a couple years.

Well, that's not going to happen. And, you can't necessarily blame that on Ward. Ward's teams have an average ranking of 23.3 in pass attempts in a season. The highest ranking was 10th in 2003. He's been on offenses ranking 28, 29, 31 (this year), 32, and 32 in pass attempts. He's a WR on a team that doesn't pass.

He is what he is. You can't put people in the Hall based on what they didn't do. Is Kevin Jones going to get in the Hall of Fame because he might have been a top RB if he played for an offense that actually ran the ball? You can't play that game.

I agree with this, and also... has Moss or Owens ever been stuck on a team that didn't pass the ball? Of course not. If you have Moss or Owens on your team, you're going to pass. An HOF WR should have some impact on his team's philosophy.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The comparison to Irvin really isn't valid, if you ask me. Irvin, whom I would put in the Hall but wouldn't call a no-brainer, was the main pass catcher for years on a dynasty. Ward cannot say that.

Also, Ward being the team MVP or becoming Pittsburgh's leader in touchdowns or whatever doesn't matter. How you do against your fellow peers of your time is much more important to being a HoFer than putting up better numbers than players that just happened to play for the same franchise 25-30 years ago.

 

[Tau837]

But the HoF isn't about identifying the best potential WR, it's about recognizing actual accomplishments over the player's career. The HoF is about what you actually did. It doesn't matter if you had Montana, Marino, Manning or Brady throwing to you. It doesn't matter if you played on a passing team. It's what you did on the field. It is your actual accomplishments, not your potential, that gets you in the HoF.

So far Ward doesn't even come close to what it should take to get into the HoF. For him to have any realistic argument he'd have to do a Curtis Martin at the end of his career.

Agree 100%. This gets overlooked a lot in HOF discussions around here.

 

[Tau837]

What about fanchise leader in receptions , TD catches and soon to be yards over 2 HOFers at the same position????

Do you think the leader in receptions, TD catches, etc. for every franchise should be in the HOF? If so, you might want to check how many WRs are actually in there. If no, what is the point of the argument?As for it being above 2 HOFers at the same position, are you really unable to understand why that is irrelevant? Different eras and thus different rules and different game. Furthermore, the "player A is in and player B has better stats, so player B should be in" argument should never be used... players should get in on their own merits... this exact argument is why the baseball HOF is so watered down.

 

[dgreen]

You can't put people in the Hall based on what they didn't do.

Nobody's doing that.We aren't starting off with some guy with crappy numbers. Ward has solid career numbers. Others have better numbers. Does that necessarily mean those others are better WRs than Ward? If you don't think Ward's numbers on their own are impressive, then you have to look into why the numbers are what they are. It would be irresponsible to simply dismiss Ward based on his numbers. They aren't in a category that you can just immediately throw him out. I think you have to consider what his numbers could be given his talent on, say, Indianapolis.So, nobody's inducted him because of what he didn't do. They would induct him what he did do impressed them and they feel his numbers could have been much better had his circumstances been different. I see no problem with playing that game.

 

[Tau837]

This isnt the baseball HOF. The numbers to get in are always moving. So what may look like a decent candicacy now, wont be in 5-8 years. Also, 3-6? players get in every year, its a set range, meaning if there is a certain year with several deserving players, they'll take spots from future classes. There is already a decent enough backlog of borderline players that makes Hines getting in highly unlikely.

 

[dgreen]

But the HoF isn't about identifying the best potential WR, it's about recognizing actual accomplishments over the player's career. The HoF is about what you actually did. It doesn't matter if you had Montana, Marino, Manning or Brady throwing to you. It doesn't matter if you played on a passing team. It's what you did on the field. It is your actual accomplishments, not your potential, that gets you in the HoF.

So far Ward doesn't even come close to what it should take to get into the HoF. For him to have any realistic argument he'd have to do a Curtis Martin at the end of his career.

Agree 100%. This gets overlooked a lot in HOF discussions around here.

Disagree. That's the starting point and, by far, the biggest factor, but it's not everything.

 

[Tau837]

IMO there is no doubt that Harrison, Moss, Owens, Holt, and Bruce are peers who are more deserving and will get in ahead of him. So he's looking at being the 6th WR of this era to get in if he makes it. It's not happening.

And I also expect Rice, Tim Brown, and Carter to get in between now and when Ward becomes eligible. And if Ward is supposedly a candidate, then Andre Reed and Monk have to be in ahead of him.

Ward just doesn't measure up to this group. He's much more comparable to Keyshawn Johnson than to these other players.

 

[Raider Nation]

Should Hines Ward make the Hall of Fame?

Yes [ 92 ] ** [50.00%]

No [ 92 ] ** [50.00%]

UPDATEYes [107] ** [50.00%]

No [107] ** [50.00%]

If the voting here is ANY measuring stick of how the actual HoF voters might view him, he has no shot.

Yes, he has more football to play. But 32 year-old WRs (his age when '08 begins) don't typically get better.

 

[GregR_2]

You can't put people in the Hall based on what they didn't do.

Nobody's doing that.We aren't starting off with some guy with crappy numbers. Ward has solid career numbers. Others have better numbers. Does that necessarily mean those others are better WRs than Ward? If you don't think Ward's numbers on their own are impressive, then you have to look into why the numbers are what they are. It would be irresponsible to simply dismiss Ward based on his numbers. They aren't in a category that you can just immediately throw him out. I think you have to consider what his numbers could be given his talent on, say, Indianapolis.So, nobody's inducted him because of what he didn't do. They would induct him what he did do impressed them and they feel his numbers could have been much better had his circumstances been different. I see no problem with playing that game.

If you're inducting for what he could have done on another team, but didn't do, then you're inducting him for something he didn't do.

 

[Tau837]

But the HoF isn't about identifying the best potential WR, it's about recognizing actual accomplishments over the player's career. The HoF is about what you actually did. It doesn't matter if you had Montana, Marino, Manning or Brady throwing to you. It doesn't matter if you played on a passing team. It's what you did on the field. It is your actual accomplishments, not your potential, that gets you in the HoF.

So far Ward doesn't even come close to what it should take to get into the HoF. For him to have any realistic argument he'd have to do a Curtis Martin at the end of his career.

Agree 100%. This gets overlooked a lot in HOF discussions around here.

Disagree. That's the starting point and, by far, the biggest factor, but it's not everything.

Can you give some examples of players who have made the HOF based on merits other than what they did? To put it another way, based on what they might have, could have, or should have done?

 

[Evilgrin 72]

(again, the WHOLE player should be looked at here, not just stats)

gllllllllllllllll

Really? Then how do you make a case for Michael Irvin being in the HOF over Art Monk?Irvin 750-11904-65Monk 940-12721-68

Hi, I'm new here. glllllllllllllll = good luck, right?I was just trying to say, "Good luck getting some people in the Shark Pool to look at more than stats."

I thought you were saying gllllllll in that the voters won't look at more than stats. My bad.

 

[dgreen]

You can't put people in the Hall based on what they didn't do.

Nobody's doing that.We aren't starting off with some guy with crappy numbers. Ward has solid career numbers. Others have better numbers. Does that necessarily mean those others are better WRs than Ward? If you don't think Ward's numbers on their own are impressive, then you have to look into why the numbers are what they are. It would be irresponsible to simply dismiss Ward based on his numbers. They aren't in a category that you can just immediately throw him out. I think you have to consider what his numbers could be given his talent on, say, Indianapolis.So, nobody's inducted him because of what he didn't do. They would induct him what he did do impressed them and they feel his numbers could have been much better had his circumstances been different. I see no problem with playing that game.

If you're inducting for what he could have done on another team, but didn't do, then you're inducting him for something he didn't do.

No, I said some might induct him because of what he did do + what his numbers could have been in other scenarios. It's a factor, but it's not the overriding factor.I'd certainly hope a voter would look at more than just numbers and that they actually watched them play and have some knowledge of their talent level.

 

[Raider Nation]

But the HoF isn't about identifying the best potential WR, it's about recognizing actual accomplishments over the player's career. The HoF is about what you actually did. It doesn't matter if you had Montana, Marino, Manning or Brady throwing to you. It doesn't matter if you played on a passing team. It's what you did on the field. It is your actual accomplishments, not your potential, that gets you in the HoF.

So far Ward doesn't even come close to what it should take to get into the HoF. For him to have any realistic argument he'd have to do a Curtis Martin at the end of his career.

Agree 100%. This gets overlooked a lot in HOF discussions around here.

Disagree. That's the starting point and, by far, the biggest factor, but it's not everything.

Can you give some examples of players who have made the HOF based on merits other than what they did? To put it another way, based on what they might have, could have, or should have done?

Gale Sayers.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I believe this will allow him to be productive later in his career, as the quickness is usually the first thing to fade (does anyone doubt Ward would be more productive at 34 than say, Santana Moss?)

He's already less productive, at 31, than Joey Galloway is, at 36.

You're taking one example of someone who's speed has defied aging. You can talk Jerry Rice too, but these guys are the exception, not the rule. I can easily see Ward maintaining his current #s until he's 35 or 36, though - which would be enough to give him 1000+ reception, 12,000+ yards, and almost 100 TDs. Those numbers don't look so bad to a HOF voter when you consider his other significant contributions (again, the WHOLE player should be looked at here, not just stats) and the fact that he will have played almost his entire career in a run-first (HEAVILY so) offense.

You guys are giving way too much emphasis to his blocking. Make that a capital WAY. Yes he's a better blocker than most WRs and that should be taken into account. But the emphasis that keeps being given to it is like he invented the concept of WRs blocking or something. There are other WRs who block well. There are other elite WRs who block well. It needs to be taken into account in favor of Ward but it is something that can take a truly borderline HoF candidate and give him the extra push over the fence.Ward isn't even borderline unless he plays at an elite WR level in a couple of his remaining years. If you can't be amongst the top 5 of your position peers you'd better be a key contributer in a dynasty to get in. Either the Steelers need to rack up 2-3 more SBs or he needs to top the league in receiving for a couple years.

I really don't think that being one of the main drivers in having a top running game year after year can be overrated. He is absolutely fearless over the middle and actually makes DEFENDERS keep their heads up. I don't know that there's another WR I've seen that does that with the regularity Ward does. His impact on the Steelers offense goes way beyond his numbers and if you don't take that into heavy consideration, you may as well just come up with a mathermatical formula that takes stats and determines HOF-worthiness.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I'd certainly hope a voter would look at more than just numbers and that they actually watched them play and have some knowledge of their talent level.

I agree, but like has been said, there are not that many wide receivers in the Hall of Fame right now as it is, so expecting more than five to make it from the current era is probably unrealistic. And like has been pointed out, Ward is not one of the best five WRs of his era; Harrison, Moss, Owens, Holt, and Bruce are all better. And I am not even sure that Bruce, probably the 5th best out of those guys, will make it.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Either the Steelers need to rack up 2-3 more SBs or he needs to top the league in receiving for a couple years.

Well, that's not going to happen. And, you can't necessarily blame that on Ward. Ward's teams have an average ranking of 23.3 in pass attempts in a season. The highest ranking was 10th in 2003. He's been on offenses ranking 28, 29, 31 (this year), 32, and 32 in pass attempts. He's a WR on a team that doesn't pass.

He is what he is. You can't put people in the Hall based on what they didn't do. Is Kevin Jones going to get in the Hall of Fame because he might have been a top RB if he played for an offense that actually ran the ball? You can't play that game.

No, but you can look at a player's contributions within the offense he plays in. If you go strictly by stats, then Colt Brennan is the best QB ever to play college football. Sure, his yardage and TD numbers are absurd, but he throws 55 times a game. Several QBs are going to be drafted ahead of him, surely that wouldn't be the case if his stats were viewed in a vacuum. You have to take into account a player's impact on the team rather than just looking at #s.

 

[Jayrod]

Either the Steelers need to rack up 2-3 more SBs or he needs to top the league in receiving for a couple years.

Well, that's not going to happen. And, you can't necessarily blame that on Ward. Ward's teams have an average ranking of 23.3 in pass attempts in a season. The highest ranking was 10th in 2003. He's been on offenses ranking 28, 29, 31 (this year), 32, and 32 in pass attempts. He's a WR on a team that doesn't pass.

He is what he is. You can't put people in the Hall based on what they didn't do. Is Kevin Jones going to get in the Hall of Fame because he might have been a top RB if he played for an offense that actually ran the ball? You can't play that game.

I agree with this, and also... has Moss or Owens ever been stuck on a team that didn't pass the ball? Of course not. If you have Moss or Owens on your team, you're going to pass. An HOF WR should have some impact on his team's philosophy.

Oh my goodness are people around here so short sighted its not even funny. This is like all those people saying before the season "LT has been the top RB for the last 5 years" when he'd really been #3 for several years in a row before the record breaking year.Do you remember the Randy Moss of the Raiders just a season ago? If you'd asked the HoF question about Moss last year, people would seriously question if he even gets in. Now he is considered a no-brainer first ballot guy who has never been on a team that wasn't a top passing attack.

Morons! I'm surrounded by morons!

 

[dgreen]

But the HoF isn't about identifying the best potential WR, it's about recognizing actual accomplishments over the player's career. The HoF is about what you actually did. It doesn't matter if you had Montana, Marino, Manning or Brady throwing to you. It doesn't matter if you played on a passing team. It's what you did on the field. It is your actual accomplishments, not your potential, that gets you in the HoF.

So far Ward doesn't even come close to what it should take to get into the HoF. For him to have any realistic argument he'd have to do a Curtis Martin at the end of his career.

Agree 100%. This gets overlooked a lot in HOF discussions around here.

Disagree. That's the starting point and, by far, the biggest factor, but it's not everything.

Can you give some examples of players who have made the HOF based on merits other than what they did? To put it another way, based on what they might have, could have, or should have done?

There are two parts to this poll and to this debate: (1) Should he get in and (2) will he get in. The biggest problem in HOF debates is one person is arguing (1) while someone else is arguing (2).

 

[Ghost Rider]

And I hate to keep harping on stats, but they are important to an extent, especially when someone is a borderline candidate for the Hall, which Ward is at best, so having said that, here are how many 1,000 yard seasons a group of WRs from the last 10 years have had:

Marvin Harrison - 8

Randy Moss - 8

Terrell Owens - 8

Torry Holt - 7 (and is 56 yards away this season from getting to 8)

Isaac Bruce - 8

Rod Smith - 8

Hines Ward - 4

Derrick Mason - 5

Keyshawn Johnson - 4

Joey Galloway - 5

Jimmy Smith - 9

Eric Moulds - 4

Amani Toomer - 5

Joe Horn - 4

I left Cris Carter and Tim Brown out, since they are more or less from the previous era, not the current one.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

IMO there is no doubt that Harrison, Moss, Owens, Holt, and Bruce are peers who are more deserving and will get in ahead of him. So he's looking at being the 6th WR of this era to get in if he makes it. It's not happening. And I also expect Rice, Tim Brown, and Carter to get in between now and when Ward becomes eligible. And if Ward is supposedly a candidate, then Andre Reed and Monk have to be in ahead of him.Ward just doesn't measure up to this group. He's much more comparable to Keyshawn Johnson than to these other players.

You can honestly say, with 20/20 hindsight, that if you were starting a franchise and had your choice of Hines Ward or Isaac Bruce, and each would play, arbitrarily, 12 relatively injury-free seasons, you'd take Bruce? Bruce has great #s because he played his entire prime in one of the most pass-happy offenses in NFL history. Ward has played his entire career for the team that probably ranks 32nd in aggregate pass attempts over those years. For all those saying you can't give a guy credit for what he "might have done" - would you really rather have the guy with the superior numbers (Bruce)?

 

[HoTnickZ]

no. HOVG.

 

[Ghost Rider]

You can honestly say, with 20/20 hindsight, that if you were starting a franchise and had your choice of Hines Ward or Isaac Bruce, and each would play, arbitrarily, 12 relatively injury-free seasons, you'd take Bruce? Bruce has great #s because he played his entire prime in one of the most pass-happy offenses in NFL history.

That is not true. The pre-Martz years in St. Louis were hardly pass-happy offenses, yet Bruce put up 1,781 yards in '95 (2nd in the NFL) and 1,338 yards in '96 (1st in the NFL). Yardage-wise, those were the best and 3rd best years he ever had.

 

[dgreen]

You can honestly say, with 20/20 hindsight, that if you were starting a franchise and had your choice of Hines Ward or Isaac Bruce, and each would play, arbitrarily, 12 relatively injury-free seasons, you'd take Bruce?

I agree. I'm not ready to just claim Bruce as the 5th best WR.

 

[Tau837]

But the HoF isn't about identifying the best potential WR, it's about recognizing actual accomplishments over the player's career. The HoF is about what you actually did. It doesn't matter if you had Montana, Marino, Manning or Brady throwing to you. It doesn't matter if you played on a passing team. It's what you did on the field. It is your actual accomplishments, not your potential, that gets you in the HoF.

So far Ward doesn't even come close to what it should take to get into the HoF. For him to have any realistic argument he'd have to do a Curtis Martin at the end of his career.

Agree 100%. This gets overlooked a lot in HOF discussions around here.

Disagree. That's the starting point and, by far, the biggest factor, but it's not everything.

Can you give some examples of players who have made the HOF based on merits other than what they did? To put it another way, based on what they might have, could have, or should have done?

Gale Sayers.

Wrong.Rookie of the year in 1965.

All Pro in 5 of 5 years.

Led NFL in rushing twice.

All time kickoff return leader when he retired.

Named all time NFL halfback in 1969.

Try again.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

You can honestly say, with 20/20 hindsight, that if you were starting a franchise and had your choice of Hines Ward or Isaac Bruce, and each would play, arbitrarily, 12 relatively injury-free seasons, you'd take Bruce? Bruce has great #s because he played his entire prime in one of the most pass-happy offenses in NFL history.

That is not true. The pre-Martz years in St. Louis were hardly pass-happy offenses, yet Bruce put up 1,781 yards in '95 (2nd in the NFL) and 1,338 yards in '96 (1st in the NFL). Yardage-wise, those were the best and 3rd best years he ever had.

Be that as it may, he still had a number of years in which he was thrown to a ton. He caught 119 balls in '95 - how many targets must he have had? And he did play most of his prime (perhaps entire was too strong a word) in a very WR-friendly offense. The only year Ward got the number of targets Bruce got in '95, he had comparable numbers.I understand you can't put Ward in the Hall based on what he might have done had he played 10 years for Mike Martz, but at the same time, it's not the Hall of Stats. You have to look at the complete football player and part of analzying statistics is putting them in context.