Pro Football Hall of Fame Class of 2023 Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Anarchy99]

Ronde Barber? Really? Over Patrick Willis? Over Dwight Freeney?

Barber is very deserving.

• 1st team All Pro 3 times and 2nd team All Pro 2 times
• Most consecutive starts at CB (200) and DB (215) in NFL history
• Only player in NFL history with 45+ interceptions and 25+ sacks
• #29 in career starts (232)
• #47 all time in interceptions (47)
• #3 all time in passes defended (197) -- tracked since 1999
• #25 all time in combined tackles (1251)
• #10 all time in solo tackles (1044)
• #70 all time in tackles for loss (88) -- at cornerback
• #4 all time in non-offensive TDs (14), behind only Hester, Deion, and Rod Woodson
• Very strong contributor in the 2002 postseason that culminated with TB winning the Super Bowl -- in 3 games, Barber had 11 combined tackles, 1 sack, 2 forced fumbles, 10 passes defended, and 2 interceptions, including an interception returned 92 yards for a TD

I never really thought of him as a shut down corner or HOF type player. More Hall of the Very Good. I know this **** is all subjective. 3 All-Pros, 4 Pro Bowls in 16 years is not really anything special. 16 years so more of a compiler IMO (but I do think he deserves some credit for playing 16 years). Pro Football Reference had him below the average HOF PER score. Whatever, he's in now. Obviously not going to win any debate about it now. Congrats to him.

PFR HOF Monitor: 81.43 (30th among DB, average HOF DB is 98.02)

Meanwhile, Willis 5 All-Pros, 7 Pro-Bowls in 8 years, and PER score of 110 which is 8th for LBs

JWB and I have debated the intrinsic value of HOF Monitor Score. Yes, Barber is below the average for HOF DBs. But there are only two players that are currently eligible rated above him that aren't HOFers (Dave Grayson and Lester Hayes).

Ken Riley is the one I would question in terms of making it to the Hall. He's 32 spots further down the list in HOF Monitor score. I've followed football for 50 years (since OJ went for 2K yards). I barely remember Riley. The only game I remember of his was a playoff game late in his career where he had an INT but the Bengals got thumped by the Jets. Other than that, I don't remember much of him at all. Good for him that he made the Hall, but it almost seems like they went out of their way to vote him in.

 

[travdogg]

I feel like neither guy was the best player at their position group on their own team during their careers, that was Mark Gastineau

Gastineau played DE and Klecko was arguably more valauble and better.

That was why I said position group (DL), and not position. Out of curiosity, what would be the argument Klecko was better?

If I had to make a case for any Jets player. I think Larry Grantham is long overdue. He was the 2nd or 3rd best LB in the AFL in my opinion. Pretty much Bobby Bell and then either Grantham or Buoniconti, who probably gets the edge due to being a key member of the 17-0 Dolphins team.

 

[Anarchy99]

I feel like neither guy was the best player at their position group on their own team during their careers, that was Mark Gastineau

Gastineau played DE and Klecko was arguably more valauble and better.

That was why I said position group (DL), and not position. Out of curiosity, what would be the argument Klecko was better?

If I had to make a case for any Jets player. I think Larry Grantham is long overdue. He was the 2nd or 3rd best LB in the AFL in my opinion. Pretty much Bobby Bell and then either Grantham or Buoniconti, who probably gets the edge due to being a key member of the 17-0 Dolphins team.

Using HOF Monitor scores again, Klecko had a score of 46.58, which as of now ranks 39th for a DT or 45th for a DE. Gastineau scored a 54.73, which places him at 32nd for DE. Not really sure either one are great HOF candidates (yet Klecko just made it in).

Bell scored 112.43, the 6th highest score for an OLB. Buoniconti scored 102.15, which is 10th highest for an ILB. Grantham is in they vicinity. His score is 85.55, which is 13th highest for an OLB.

 

[Tau837]

PFR HOF Monitor: 81.43 (30th among DB, average HOF DB is 98.02)

Meanwhile, Willis 5 All-Pros, 7 Pro-Bowls in 8 years, and PER score of 110 which is 8th for LBs

First of all, Willis will still get in.

As for the HOF Monitor metric, it is flawed:

• HOF Monitor is largely based on Approximate Value (AV), which is flawed:
  • For defense, a given team's total defense points to be divided up among the defensive players is based exclusively on defensive points allowed per drive
    • No elements for yards allowed, points allowed total (not per drive) or any other defensive metric
  • 1/3 of those points are assigned to defensive backs and 2/3 to the rest of the position groups, independent of how good those groups are on any given defense
    • This disproportionately hurts a player like Barber, who played with another HOF defensive back
    • This methodology is also dated, since teams play 5+ DBs more often than they play just 4, so this splitting of the points shorts the DB group nowadays
  • Defensive backs are given zero credit for tackles
    • Tackles was a big strength for Barber, and he gets zero credit for it
  • Defensive players get points for interceptions but not for passes defended
    • PD was a big strength for Barber, and he gets zero credit for it
  • Defensive players get points for fumble recoveries, but not for forced fumbles
  • Defensive players get points for sacks, but not for other pressures (QB hits, hurries)
  • AV accounts only for regular season games; it ignores postseason games
• HOF Monitor does not account for postseason play or success other than a small fixed credit (2.5 points) for being on a championship team
• HOF Monitor actually adds points to a player's score every time they are a semi-finalist or finalist in a PFHOF class

Despite all that, here are Barber's ranks among all DBs who played at least 50 career games in 1955 or later:

• HOF Monitor (81.43) = #30
• Weighted AV (109) = tied for #8 with Mike Haynes and Willie Brown, behind only Rod Woodson, Deion, Lott, Paul Krause, Champ, Charles Woodson, and Aeneas Williams

Given the reasons I mentioned above, both of these metrics underrate Barber, and he should be higher in both rankings relative to both DBs and defensive players as a whole.

HOF Monitor and AV are fine metrics to use as aggregate proxies in some evaluations of players, but IMO it is appropriate to remember their flaws/limitations.

 

[Buckna]

I am assuming having so many eligible WR’s dilutes their chances, would have thought at least one would have made it.

 

[Anarchy99]

I am assuming having so many eligible WR’s dilutes their chances, would have thought at least one would have made it.

Here are all players currently eligible for the HOF that have HOF Monitor scores of 85+:

Patrick Willis ILB 110.10
Reggie Wayne WR 109.14
Torry Holt WR 107.22
Jim Tyrer T 105.30
Kevin Williams DT 105.03
Steve Smith WR 98.91
Jahri Evans G 95.75
Andre Johnson WR 93.91
Dwight Freeney DE 86.55
Larry Grantham OLB 85.55

That's 4 guys competing for the same votes. One would think Larry Fitzgerald would be a lock in a few years, so these other guys might have to wait a while to get in.

And speaking of WR, Jerry Rice's Monitor Score pretty much tells the story of how great he was. He ranks #1 all time across all positions at 311.99 (Brady is second at 263.03). Randy Moss is #2 at WR . . . with a score of 150.12.

Of the guys on the above list, the only one that likely has no chance at a HOF berth would be Tyrer, as inducting someone that saw his life end in a murder / suicide would be a bad look for the league.

 

[travdogg]

I am assuming having so many eligible WR’s dilutes their chances, would have thought at least one would have made it.

Here are all players currently eligible for the HOF that have HOF Monitor scores of 85+:

Patrick Willis ILB 110.10
Reggie Wayne WR 109.14
Torry Holt WR 107.22
Jim Tyrer T 105.30
Kevin Williams DT 105.03
Steve Smith WR 98.91
Jahri Evans G 95.75
Andre Johnson WR 93.91
Dwight Freeney DE 86.55
Larry Grantham OLB 85.55

That's 4 guys competing for the same votes. One would think Larry Fitzgerald would be a lock in a few years, so these other guys might have to wait a while to get in.

And speaking of WR, Jerry Rice's Monitor Score pretty much tells the story of how great he was. He ranks #1 all time across all positions at 311.99 (Brady is second at 263.03). Randy Moss is #2 at WR . . . with a score of 150.12.

Of the guys on the above list, the only one that likely has no chance at a HOF berth would be Tyrer, as inducting someone that saw his life end in a murder / suicide would be a bad look for the league.

Its crazy that the dropoff from Rice to Randy Moss is bigger than the dropoff from Moss to Jalen Reagor (or any other WR.) I do kinda think the WRs are all a little overrated. I'd be ok with none of Wayne, Holt, Smith or Johnson making it, though I think all those guys were better than Isaac Bruce or Andre Reed, and they both got in. I think there are plenty of older WRs (Del Shofner for example) I think are more worthy than those guys, or a more modern guy like Sterling Sharpe.

Patrick Willis and Kevin Williams are the 2 I probably most think are deserving.

Yeah, Tyrer will never get in. He was probably a top-3 overall OL in the AFL, but he was basically the NFL's Chris Benoit.

 

[Anarchy99]

In case anyone was wondering, here are all the players that made the HOF with Monitor Scores under 50:

RB Floyd Little - 40.25
DE Fred Dean - 43.85
DE Elvin Bethea - 45.03
T Winston Hill - 47.80
DB D.ick Lebeau - 48.20
OLB Dave Wilcox - 49.88

 

[Anarchy99]

I am assuming having so many eligible WR’s dilutes their chances, would have thought at least one would have made it.

Here are all players currently eligible for the HOF that have HOF Monitor scores of 85+:

Patrick Willis ILB 110.10
Reggie Wayne WR 109.14
Torry Holt WR 107.22
Jim Tyrer T 105.30
Kevin Williams DT 105.03
Steve Smith WR 98.91
Jahri Evans G 95.75
Andre Johnson WR 93.91
Dwight Freeney DE 86.55
Larry Grantham OLB 85.55

That's 4 guys competing for the same votes. One would think Larry Fitzgerald would be a lock in a few years, so these other guys might have to wait a while to get in.

And speaking of WR, Jerry Rice's Monitor Score pretty much tells the story of how great he was. He ranks #1 all time across all positions at 311.99 (Brady is second at 263.03). Randy Moss is #2 at WR . . . with a score of 150.12.

Of the guys on the above list, the only one that likely has no chance at a HOF berth would be Tyrer, as inducting someone that saw his life end in a murder / suicide would be a bad look for the league.

Its crazy that the dropoff from Rice to Randy Moss is bigger than the dropoff from Moss to Jalen Reagor (or any other WR.) I do kinda think the WRs are all a little overrated. I'd be ok with none of Wayne, Holt, Smith or Johnson making it, though I think all those guys were better than Isaac Bruce or Andre Reed, and they both got in. I think there are plenty of older WRs (Del Shofner for example) I think are more worthy than those guys, or a more modern guy like Sterling Sharpe.

Patrick Willis and Kevin Williams are the 2 I probably most think are deserving.

Yeah, Tyrer will never get in. He was probably a top-3 overall OL in the AFL, but he was basically the NFL's Chris Benoit.

I think part of the reason WR scores get inflated is several of them have gone on to play more years than players at other positions. Since the whole methodology is built on CareerAV, the more years you play, the higher your score will be.

There are probably better ways to compute and calculate things. I am more interested in peak value than career counting metrics. A lot of guys end up playing out the string at a below average VORP, but they end up climbing career rankings (for being less than productive than most players at the same position). For skill position players, I think there should also be a category that tracks production vs. league average or production vs. the Top 10. Some sort of quality point system.

For example, Jerome Betts added 2,700+ rushing yards over his final 4 seasons with only a 3.5 ypc. The league average in those years was 4.2. But those yards put him at #8 all time, instead of somewhere around 25th (below Steven Jackson, Corey Dillon, LeSean McCoy, and Warrick Dunn and right next to Ricky Watters, Jamal Lewis, Thomas Jones, and Eddie George). IMO, your HOF chances should not go up be being a below average player for 4 seasons. Maybe Betts deserved to be in anyway, but it seems like he was a plodder in his 30s that didn't do a heck of a lot other than be a short yardage / goal line back (he averaged 7.5 catches a season in those years).

 

[travdogg]

I am assuming having so many eligible WR’s dilutes their chances, would have thought at least one would have made it.

Here are all players currently eligible for the HOF that have HOF Monitor scores of 85+:

Patrick Willis ILB 110.10
Reggie Wayne WR 109.14
Torry Holt WR 107.22
Jim Tyrer T 105.30
Kevin Williams DT 105.03
Steve Smith WR 98.91
Jahri Evans G 95.75
Andre Johnson WR 93.91
Dwight Freeney DE 86.55
Larry Grantham OLB 85.55

That's 4 guys competing for the same votes. One would think Larry Fitzgerald would be a lock in a few years, so these other guys might have to wait a while to get in.

And speaking of WR, Jerry Rice's Monitor Score pretty much tells the story of how great he was. He ranks #1 all time across all positions at 311.99 (Brady is second at 263.03). Randy Moss is #2 at WR . . . with a score of 150.12.

Of the guys on the above list, the only one that likely has no chance at a HOF berth would be Tyrer, as inducting someone that saw his life end in a murder / suicide would be a bad look for the league.

Its crazy that the dropoff from Rice to Randy Moss is bigger than the dropoff from Moss to Jalen Reagor (or any other WR.) I do kinda think the WRs are all a little overrated. I'd be ok with none of Wayne, Holt, Smith or Johnson making it, though I think all those guys were better than Isaac Bruce or Andre Reed, and they both got in. I think there are plenty of older WRs (Del Shofner for example) I think are more worthy than those guys, or a more modern guy like Sterling Sharpe.

Patrick Willis and Kevin Williams are the 2 I probably most think are deserving.

Yeah, Tyrer will never get in. He was probably a top-3 overall OL in the AFL, but he was basically the NFL's Chris Benoit.

I think part of the reason WR scores get inflated is several of them have gone on to play more years than players at other positions. Since the whole methodology is built on CareerAV, the more years you play, the higher your score will be.

There are probably better ways to compute and calculate things. I am more interested in peak value than career counting metrics. A lot of guys end up playing out the string at a below average VORP, but they end up climbing career rankings (for being less than productive than most players at the same position). For skill position players, I think there should also be a category that tracks production vs. league average or production vs. the Top 10. Some sort of quality point system.

For example, Jerome Betts added 2,700+ rushing yards over his final 4 seasons with only a 3.5 ypc. The league average in those years was 4.2. But those yards put him at #8 all time, instead of somewhere around 25th (below Steven Jackson, Corey Dillon, LeSean McCoy, and Warrick Dunn and right next to Ricky Watters, Jamal Lewis, Thomas Jones, and Eddie George). IMO, your HOF chances should not go up be being a below average player for 4 seasons. Maybe Betts deserved to be in anyway, but it seems like he was a plodder in his 30s that didn't do a heck of a lot other than be a short yardage / goal line back (he averaged 7.5 catches a season in those years).

I would agree with you that peak value should be much more important than longevity. I feel like I'm picking on the guy, but Frank Gore is the 3rd leading rusher in NFL history, and I'd argue he might be the 3rd best RB just in 49ers history, but because he's 3rd all-time in rushing he's probably a lock, even though he was never a top-3 RB in his career, and has about 5,000 empty calorie yards, acquired much the same way as late career Bettis was.

Its not a perfect way of looking at it, but I think 1st team all-pros are probably the best way of both comparing peak values, and players across eras against their peers. Its not the end all be all, but I think its a great place to start. Basically, how often was a player the best or 2nd best player at his position.

I think maybe an average of a players 3-5 best seasons isn't a bad way to look at it either, at least with skill positions. Like my Sterling Sharpe example, he averaged 94-1276-12 over his best 5 years, numbers only Jerry Rice exceeded during that timeframe, and Sharpe had 2 seasons with Don Majkowski and Mike Tomczak at QB. That average season would have been the best year of Andre Reed's career, and he played all of his prime with Jim Kelly. Reed has 5000 more career yards in 9 more seasons, which is very middling production.

 

[Anarchy99]

I am assuming having so many eligible WR’s dilutes their chances, would have thought at least one would have made it.

Here are all players currently eligible for the HOF that have HOF Monitor scores of 85+:

Patrick Willis ILB 110.10
Reggie Wayne WR 109.14
Torry Holt WR 107.22
Jim Tyrer T 105.30
Kevin Williams DT 105.03
Steve Smith WR 98.91
Jahri Evans G 95.75
Andre Johnson WR 93.91
Dwight Freeney DE 86.55
Larry Grantham OLB 85.55

That's 4 guys competing for the same votes. One would think Larry Fitzgerald would be a lock in a few years, so these other guys might have to wait a while to get in.

And speaking of WR, Jerry Rice's Monitor Score pretty much tells the story of how great he was. He ranks #1 all time across all positions at 311.99 (Brady is second at 263.03). Randy Moss is #2 at WR . . . with a score of 150.12.

Of the guys on the above list, the only one that likely has no chance at a HOF berth would be Tyrer, as inducting someone that saw his life end in a murder / suicide would be a bad look for the league.

Its crazy that the dropoff from Rice to Randy Moss is bigger than the dropoff from Moss to Jalen Reagor (or any other WR.) I do kinda think the WRs are all a little overrated. I'd be ok with none of Wayne, Holt, Smith or Johnson making it, though I think all those guys were better than Isaac Bruce or Andre Reed, and they both got in. I think there are plenty of older WRs (Del Shofner for example) I think are more worthy than those guys, or a more modern guy like Sterling Sharpe.

Patrick Willis and Kevin Williams are the 2 I probably most think are deserving.

Yeah, Tyrer will never get in. He was probably a top-3 overall OL in the AFL, but he was basically the NFL's Chris Benoit.

I think part of the reason WR scores get inflated is several of them have gone on to play more years than players at other positions. Since the whole methodology is built on CareerAV, the more years you play, the higher your score will be.

There are probably better ways to compute and calculate things. I am more interested in peak value than career counting metrics. A lot of guys end up playing out the string at a below average VORP, but they end up climbing career rankings (for being less than productive than most players at the same position). For skill position players, I think there should also be a category that tracks production vs. league average or production vs. the Top 10. Some sort of quality point system.

For example, Jerome Betts added 2,700+ rushing yards over his final 4 seasons with only a 3.5 ypc. The league average in those years was 4.2. But those yards put him at #8 all time, instead of somewhere around 25th (below Steven Jackson, Corey Dillon, LeSean McCoy, and Warrick Dunn and right next to Ricky Watters, Jamal Lewis, Thomas Jones, and Eddie George). IMO, your HOF chances should not go up be being a below average player for 4 seasons. Maybe Betts deserved to be in anyway, but it seems like he was a plodder in his 30s that didn't do a heck of a lot other than be a short yardage / goal line back (he averaged 7.5 catches a season in those years).

I would agree with you that peak value should be much more important than longevity. I feel like I'm picking on the guy, but Frank Gore is the 3rd leading rusher in NFL history, and I'd argue he might be the 3rd best RB just in 49ers history, but because he's 3rd all-time in rushing he's probably a lock, even though he was never a top-3 RB in his career, and has about 5,000 empty calorie yards, acquired much the same way as late career Bettis was.

Its not a perfect way of looking at it, but I think 1st team all-pros are probably the best way of both comparing peak values, and players across eras against their peers. Its not the end all be all, but I think its a great place to start. Basically, how often was a player the best or 2nd best player at his position.

I think maybe an average of a players 3-5 best seasons isn't a bad way to look at it either, at least with skill positions. Like my Sterling Sharpe example, he averaged 94-1276-12 over his best 5 years, numbers only Jerry Rice exceeded during that timeframe, and Sharpe had 2 seasons with Don Majkowski and Mike Tomczak at QB. That average season would have been the best year of Andre Reed's career, and he played all of his prime with Jim Kelly. Reed has 5000 more career yards in 9 more seasons, which is very middling production.

Back in the day, I started putting together a "peak seasons" database. I took a player's best 5 years in each major category (they could have been in different seasons). It was years ago, so probably not that useful now (unless I find it and update it). Part of the problem with that model is it makes someone like Tyrell Davis look like the greatest RB in history.

The other issue is that the value of a yard changes from year to year and decade to decade. There were years in the 70s where no QB made it to 3,000 yards. Now guys get 5,000+ yards. Another issue is teams play 17 games when in the based they played fewer games. Bottom line, it's really hard to come up with a universal rating system.

 

[Tau837]

I am assuming having so many eligible WR’s dilutes their chances, would have thought at least one would have made it.

Here are all players currently eligible for the HOF that have HOF Monitor scores of 85+:

Patrick Willis ILB 110.10
Reggie Wayne WR 109.14
Torry Holt WR 107.22
Jim Tyrer T 105.30
Kevin Williams DT 105.03
Steve Smith WR 98.91
Jahri Evans G 95.75
Andre Johnson WR 93.91
Dwight Freeney DE 86.55
Larry Grantham OLB 85.55

That's 4 guys competing for the same votes. One would think Larry Fitzgerald would be a lock in a few years, so these other guys might have to wait a while to get in.

And speaking of WR, Jerry Rice's Monitor Score pretty much tells the story of how great he was. He ranks #1 all time across all positions at 311.99 (Brady is second at 263.03). Randy Moss is #2 at WR . . . with a score of 150.12.

Of the guys on the above list, the only one that likely has no chance at a HOF berth would be Tyrer, as inducting someone that saw his life end in a murder / suicide would be a bad look for the league.

Its crazy that the dropoff from Rice to Randy Moss is bigger than the dropoff from Moss to Jalen Reagor (or any other WR.) I do kinda think the WRs are all a little overrated. I'd be ok with none of Wayne, Holt, Smith or Johnson making it, though I think all those guys were better than Isaac Bruce or Andre Reed, and they both got in. I think there are plenty of older WRs (Del Shofner for example) I think are more worthy than those guys, or a more modern guy like Sterling Sharpe.

Patrick Willis and Kevin Williams are the 2 I probably most think are deserving.

Yeah, Tyrer will never get in. He was probably a top-3 overall OL in the AFL, but he was basically the NFL's Chris Benoit.

I think part of the reason WR scores get inflated is several of them have gone on to play more years than players at other positions. Since the whole methodology is built on CareerAV, the more years you play, the higher your score will be.

There are probably better ways to compute and calculate things. I am more interested in peak value than career counting metrics. A lot of guys end up playing out the string at a below average VORP, but they end up climbing career rankings (for being less than productive than most players at the same position). For skill position players, I think there should also be a category that tracks production vs. league average or production vs. the Top 10. Some sort of quality point system.

For example, Jerome Betts added 2,700+ rushing yards over his final 4 seasons with only a 3.5 ypc. The league average in those years was 4.2. But those yards put him at #8 all time, instead of somewhere around 25th (below Steven Jackson, Corey Dillon, LeSean McCoy, and Warrick Dunn and right next to Ricky Watters, Jamal Lewis, Thomas Jones, and Eddie George). IMO, your HOF chances should not go up be being a below average player for 4 seasons. Maybe Betts deserved to be in anyway, but it seems like he was a plodder in his 30s that didn't do a heck of a lot other than be a short yardage / goal line back (he averaged 7.5 catches a season in those years).

I would agree with you that peak value should be much more important than longevity. I feel like I'm picking on the guy, but Frank Gore is the 3rd leading rusher in NFL history, and I'd argue he might be the 3rd best RB just in 49ers history, but because he's 3rd all-time in rushing he's probably a lock, even though he was never a top-3 RB in his career, and has about 5,000 empty calorie yards, acquired much the same way as late career Bettis was.

Its not a perfect way of looking at it, but I think 1st team all-pros are probably the best way of both comparing peak values, and players across eras against their peers. Its not the end all be all, but I think its a great place to start. Basically, how often was a player the best or 2nd best player at his position.

I think maybe an average of a players 3-5 best seasons isn't a bad way to look at it either, at least with skill positions. Like my Sterling Sharpe example, he averaged 94-1276-12 over his best 5 years, numbers only Jerry Rice exceeded during that timeframe, and Sharpe had 2 seasons with Don Majkowski and Mike Tomczak at QB. That average season would have been the best year of Andre Reed's career, and he played all of his prime with Jim Kelly. Reed has 5000 more career yards in 9 more seasons, which is very middling production.

Back in the day, I started putting together a "peak seasons" database. I took a player's best 5 years in each major category (they could have been in different seasons). It was years ago, so probably not that useful now (unless I find it and update it). Part of the problem with that model is it makes someone like Tyrell Davis look like the greatest RB in history.

The other issue is that the value of a yard changes from year to year and decade to decade. There were years in the 70s where no QB made it to 3,000 yards. Now guys get 5,000+ yards. Another issue is teams play 17 games when in the based they played fewer games. Bottom line, it's really hard to come up with a universal rating system.

I agree with you guys. Arguably one of the flaws with Weighted AV is that it gives credit for up to 20 seasons. Declining credit, but still positive points. From PFR:

At the top of every player's PFR page, you will see "Weighted Career AV" and a ranking since 1960. You can see the leaderboard here. This is Doug's way of balancing peak production against raw career totals. For each player, the following weighted sum of seasonal AV scores is calculated:

100% of the player's best season, plus 95% of his 2nd-best season, plus 90% of his 3rd-best season, plus 85% of his 4th-best season, and so on...

Sterling Sharpe played 7 seasons, so he gets declining credit for his AV in those seasons from most AV to lowest AV, starting with 100% credit and declining each season by 5% to getting 70% credit for his lowest AV season.

But Reggie Wayne played 14 seasons. So he gets declining credit for his AV starting with 100% credit and ending at 35% credit for his lowest AAV season. For his extra 7 seasons -- his lowest 7 AV seasons -- Wayne gets 26.7 points in Weighted AV. Removing that, he would still be higher than Sharpe in Weighted AV due to other flaws (below).

Is that fair and appropriate that Wayne gets that credit? It's debatable. There is obviously value in strong peak performance, but there is also obvious value in performing for a longer period of time, even if not at peak level.

I think it would be better if AV cut off at fewer than 20 seasons of value. Like 10 or 12 or 15. Or maybe something like this: use the current method declining from 100% to 55% for the first 10 seasons, then use declining values of 25% to 5% for seasons 11-15, and give no credit above season 15. Not sure if that makes the best sense, either.

Wayne vs. Sharpe illustrates some of the other flaws with the AV methodology.

• In Wayne's best AV season (2007), he had 104/1510/10 on 156 targets and 19 AV, with Peyton Manning at QB. The IND QBs (Sorgi had 18 attempts) combined for 355 completions (Wayne had 29.3%), 4172 yards (Wayne had 36.2%), and 32 TDs (Wayne had 31.3%).
• In Sharpe's best season (1992), he had 108/1461/13 on 162 targets and 15 AV, with Majkowski at QB for 3 games until he got hurt and then first year starter Favre at QB for the remainder of the season. The GB QBs combined for 340 completions (Sharpe had 31.8%), 3498 yards (Sharpe had 41.8%), and 20 TDs (Sharpe had 65%).

The 1992 GB QBs were worse than Peyton in 2007, and Sharpe had a greater share of receptions, yards, and TDs than Wayne did in those respective seasons. Yet Sharpe was assigned 15 AV and Wayne was assigned 19. I would value Sharpe's season more than Wayne's season, but AV doesn't.

 

[Anarchy99]

Sterling Sharpe played 7 seasons, so he gets declining credit for his AV in those seasons from most AV to lowest AV, starting with 100% credit and declining each season by 5% to getting 70% credit for his lowest AV season.

But Reggie Wayne played 14 seasons. So he gets declining credit for his AV starting with 100% credit and ending at 35% credit for his lowest AAV season. For his extra 7 seasons -- his lowest 7 AV seasons -- Wayne gets 26.7 points in Weighted AV. Removing that, he would still be higher than Sharpe in Weighted AV due to other flaws (below).

Is that fair and appropriate that Wayne gets that credit? It's debatable. There is obviously value in strong peak performance, but there is also obvious value in performing for a longer period of time, even if not at peak level.

I think it would be better if AV cut off at fewer than 20 seasons of value. Like 10 or 12 or 15. Or maybe something like this: use the current method declining from 100% to 55% for the first 10 seasons, then use declining values of 25% to 5% for seasons 11-15, and give no credit above season 15. Not sure if that makes the best sense, either.

Wayne vs. Sharpe illustrates some of the other flaws with the AV methodology.

• In Wayne's best AV season (2007), he had 104/1510/10 on 156 targets and 19 AV, with Peyton Manning at QB. The IND QBs (Sorgi had 18 attempts) combined for 355 completions (Wayne had 29.3%), 4172 yards (Wayne had 36.2%), and 32 TDs (Wayne had 31.3%).
• In Sharpe's best season (1992), he had 108/1461/13 on 162 targets and 15 AV, with Majkowski at QB for 3 games until he got hurt and then first year starter Favre at QB for the remainder of the season. The GB QBs combined for 340 completions (Sharpe had 31.8%), 3498 yards (Sharpe had 41.8%), and 20 TDs (Sharpe had 65%).

The 1992 GB QBs were worse than Peyton in 2007, and Sharpe had a greater share of receptions, yards, and TDs than Wayne did in those respective seasons. Yet Sharpe was assigned 15 AV and Wayne was assigned 19. I would value Sharpe's season more than Wayne's season, but AV doesn't.

It would be easier to come to a consensus on the most beautiful woman in the world over the past 100 years than it would be to come up with a fool proof player evaluation tool.

 

[Tau837]

Sterling Sharpe played 7 seasons, so he gets declining credit for his AV in those seasons from most AV to lowest AV, starting with 100% credit and declining each season by 5% to getting 70% credit for his lowest AV season.

But Reggie Wayne played 14 seasons. So he gets declining credit for his AV starting with 100% credit and ending at 35% credit for his lowest AAV season. For his extra 7 seasons -- his lowest 7 AV seasons -- Wayne gets 26.7 points in Weighted AV. Removing that, he would still be higher than Sharpe in Weighted AV due to other flaws (below).

Is that fair and appropriate that Wayne gets that credit? It's debatable. There is obviously value in strong peak performance, but there is also obvious value in performing for a longer period of time, even if not at peak level.

I think it would be better if AV cut off at fewer than 20 seasons of value. Like 10 or 12 or 15. Or maybe something like this: use the current method declining from 100% to 55% for the first 10 seasons, then use declining values of 25% to 5% for seasons 11-15, and give no credit above season 15. Not sure if that makes the best sense, either.

Wayne vs. Sharpe illustrates some of the other flaws with the AV methodology.

• In Wayne's best AV season (2007), he had 104/1510/10 on 156 targets and 19 AV, with Peyton Manning at QB. The IND QBs (Sorgi had 18 attempts) combined for 355 completions (Wayne had 29.3%), 4172 yards (Wayne had 36.2%), and 32 TDs (Wayne had 31.3%).
• In Sharpe's best season (1992), he had 108/1461/13 on 162 targets and 15 AV, with Majkowski at QB for 3 games until he got hurt and then first year starter Favre at QB for the remainder of the season. The GB QBs combined for 340 completions (Sharpe had 31.8%), 3498 yards (Sharpe had 41.8%), and 20 TDs (Sharpe had 65%).

The 1992 GB QBs were worse than Peyton in 2007, and Sharpe had a greater share of receptions, yards, and TDs than Wayne did in those respective seasons. Yet Sharpe was assigned 15 AV and Wayne was assigned 19. I would value Sharpe's season more than Wayne's season, but AV doesn't.

It would be easier to come to a consensus on the most beautiful woman in the world over the past 100 years than it would be to come up with a fool proof player evaluation tool.

 

[Capella]

Ronde Barber? Really? Over Patrick Willis? Over Dwight Freeney?

Yea he was a stud.

 

[Wingnut]

The enshrinement ceremony is live on NFL network right now.

Watched Zach Thomas, DeMarcus Ware, and Joe Klecko speeches, Chuck Howley is next.

 

[gump]

How many of the legendary NFL defenses had 4 HOF, at 4 levels (DL, LB, CB, S)?

 

[Wingnut]

Revis is up. What a fun day for Jets fans.