Pro Football Reference Blog

Oh duh, I was thinking 63+ yards per game.

Wow. I certainly said certainly a few times in a few sentences there. I should certainly consider proofing my posts before making them to make certain they don't read like crap, because at present, some of them certainly do.

I don't know which of the two is better, but I think Carter has the best odds of the three of getting in. I certainly heard more about how great Carter was than how great Brown was back when they were playing. He had a reputation for catching anything thrown his way. I have no idea how deserved it is, but it exists nonetheless.
.
And when he retired, I think he was #2 in receiving TDs (behind Rice), #2 in receptions (behind Rice), and something like #4 in receiving yards (behind Rice, Brown, and Lofton I think... right?) An average of 2.7th place in the three major career receiver stats? I don't think there's any way voters can ignore that.

Holt will retire with 1000 catches and 15,000 yards, including six straight 1300+ seasons, and he is a marginal proposition?

I think the case for Derrick Mason is an interesting one based on the argument made for the author. He has collected 8 1000 yard seasons playing for teams ranked in the bottom half of the league in # of passing attempts. That's impressive.

There's another observation that has to be made here. By and large, the HoF selectors haven't been watching football for the last twenty-five years, not really. They grew up in an era where football was about running the ball, and throwing deep. Guys who could actually get open, catch a pass, and keep the chains moving were undervalued. So your players like Lionel Taylor never had a chance. It was the Paul Warfields who were the monsters of the game, even though four receptions was a big day for those guys.
If you look at the first bunch of WR's who were inducted, pretty much all of them had something in common: they broke one or more of the major receiving records originally set by Don Hutson. (In fact, the only exception to that rule is Billy Howton -- he held the total yards record for three years and total receptions for one. There's reasons for his exclusion that have nothing to do with football, and alot to do with a federal prison.)
So all those guys who got in quickly -- Raymond Berry, Charley Taylor, Steve Largent -- that's what was going on there. Then they get to James Lofton and Charlie Joiner and have that "oops" moment, where they realize they don't really have a clue what they're doing. The game had completely changed, mostly thanks to Bill Walsh, and skills that had previously gone completely to waste were now valued, and changes in defense made previously valued skills less important. But not to the selection committee, not all of them at least. Al Davis ain't the only guy who was still looking for the next Daryle Lamonica to Warren Wells. A lot of the voters haven't quite left that behind them. So they look for rings, and deep, pretty catches. That gets you (gag) Lynn Swann and John Stallworth but not Harold Jackson. It gets you Paul Warfield on the first ballot while Tommy McDonald's identical numbers wait 24 years, and Don Maynard, who kicks both their asses, waits 8 years for his call. And now you got confusion.
So finally you get to Art Monk. As a receiver, he was marginal. I think what finally did it for him was Joe Gibbs saying, "He wasn't a receiver, he was a tight end." Once they were willing to think of him as a small-t tE, his inclusion became a no-brainer.
Bottom line? They don't know what they're doing. Too many of them are going with "I know it when I see it." Except first, if they've read the book "Moneyball" they'd know that's not such a hot approach; and second, they just aren't watching the same game we are.

Re: #12 great post!

One thing to add: I think other gurus aside from Bill Walsh need to take some of the credit for the advancement of the short passing game and the proliferation of possession receivers. Certainly Walsh was an early pioneer of such tactics with Cincinnati.

But back in the early-to-mid-70s Fran Tarkenton and offensive coordinator Jerry Burns used the short dumps to RBs, WRs, and TEs as a principal part of their offense. The strategy continued into the 80s and has been a lasting legacy for the Vikings beyond the 80s and 90s. They became Exhibit A in 1981, much like the 49ers did.

Minnesota drafted for RBs according to how they projected as pass receivers. Of course, so did San Francisco and some other teams. Thurman Thomas, James Brooks, Chuck Foreman, Roger Craig come to mind. These RBs became very dangerous weapons by nickeling and diming defenses. Throw in possession receiver types and you stretch the field east and west versus strictly vertically with the deep passing attack.

The Hall really blew it when they didn't elect CC in his first year of eligibility. He was the prototype possession receiver who performed at a very high level for a long time and got 130 TDs, second only to Rice as far as wideouts were concerned when he retired. All the great WRs wanted to be remembered as being consistent week in and week out. CC was.

The Hall selectors are admittedy fallible though. They voted for Art Monk out of sympathy more than anything and even writers like Paul Zimmermann (get well, Zimm) admitted they might have made a mistake with that one. You'd think that Monk's admission would have opened doors for other possession-type WRs. But last year CC was again passed over despite having almost twice as many TDs as Monk. Was the Hall punishing itself for the admission of Monk by excluding CC?

It is very difficult to get into the Football Hall of Fame! Especially the recievers! Jerry Rice is a lock, but what about Andre Reed, Chris Carter, and Shannon Sharpe? Cris Carter has the best hands of all-time while Andre Reed was the most dangerous wide recievers once the ball was in his hands. He made the most dangerous offense in the Buffalo Bills go especially when they had their no-huddle offense set into effect in 1990 and beyond. You could not cover him one on one in any offense he was in.

And last, but not least, Shannon Sharpe was one of the most dangerous Tight Ends to play the game. He was the best Tight End to play in the 90's!He defined the H-back position which is a type of Tight End that can be versatile. He was not a great blocker, but he was reliable in the running games of the Denver Broncos and Baltimore Ravens. At one time he was considered the strongest man in the NFL. He was not fast but he was a mismatch for a defensive back because he was too big and strong and he was a mismatch for a linebacker because he was too fast for linebackers especially those who could only stop the run or rush the passer. He was a well-rounded Tight End! When I see pash-catching tight end Tony Gonzalez play he reminds me of Shannon Sharp when he played because he could do it all. I believe that all three will be inducted into the Hall of Fame and rightfully so.

I don't think it was a grave injustice or grievous mistake that Cris Carter didn't get elected first ballot. Only four of the 20 HoF-ers listed as Modern Era Wide Receivers were: Ray Berry, Paul Warfield, Steve Largent, and Lance Alworth. That's it.

Carter will surely get voted in soon enough, perhaps this year, and I'm fine with that. But he's not Jerry Rice, who will surely go in first ballot this year -- and given that Carter is not viewed as the greatest WR of his time, plus he's likely getting delayed a little as many possession type WRs have, his waiting a little isn't unreasonable.

Same thing with Art Monk. I think he belongs in, but he's not at super-elite level and carries the same possession receiver baggage. Plus I'm not sure blocking prowess or lack of same makes much difference in a WR's HoF case.

And before anyone squawks about Shannon Sharpe not being a first-ballot TE, note that his blocking reputation was not good (that may indeed matter more at this position), and perhaps most importantly, no TE has ever been elected in their first year eligible. Not one.

Sterling Sharpe is the best WR not in the hall. But his short career and lack of total numbers prevent him from getting in. He is the only WR to outplay Jerry Rice for a season during Rice's prime (1992). Imagine if he stayed healthy and continued with an emerging Brett Favre? He was a 5 time Pro Bowler and 3 Time First Team All Pro in only 7 seasons in the NFL. That's more First Team All Pros than Brown, Carter, and Reed combined, and they played 49 combined NFL seasons.

I would take Cris Carter over Steve Largent any day and any year. Largent - first ballot and deserving. CC - two years waiting and counting. Totally unfair, given the numbers CC put up. I am sure CC will get in this year but that is what I said last year and the year before.

CC's teammate, John Randle, is also a worthy candidate. Does that mean the Hall voters have to watch their quotas on players from the same team? The politics and self-imposed restraints on who gets in is just baffling and unfair. Last year it was Buffalo with Smith, Wilson, and Reed on the final ballot.

Also, the Hall should never be a day of judgment about how many Super Bowl rings a player has, but an honest evaluation of what a certain player contributed toward his team's ultimate standing. There are at least two Steelers who made it on rings and beat out other players who were just as worthy but without the jewelry. I pass by the Steeler wing every time I visit Canton. Nothing against Pittsburgh and its history, but I saw other worthy players passed over who had no rings but had a tremendous impact on the game.

Also, campaigning is fine to bring to light certain accomplishments that Hall voters might not be aware of, but this only points out the weaknesses of the vetting that goes on and the lack of education of the Hall selectors. It should be a slam dunk decision on Hall worthiness or not. But, because of the restrictions the Hall has imposed on retirees, there are players waiting their turn as "shoe-ins" (CC and Sharpe among them) who now have to compete each passing year with other worthy players coming up because of these limitations.

I am all for inclusion for those who are worthy, but I cannot tolerate players having to wait longer than is just. Alan Page had to wait one year because Mean Joe Greene had to get in first with his Super Bowl rings. But Page has the highest career AV of all-time, was the first MVP named on defense until LT 15 years later, and arguably the best defensive tackle in football all-time.

I hope there is room for Sharpe, CC, and Brown this year. But it won't happen. That leaves no room for OLs, DLs, LBs, etc. Things would be different if the senior candidates didn't occupy two slots. So as it stands there will never be an up-or-down vote for certain players whose name will always come up when talking about the history of the game that would qualify themselves for the hallowed Hall, if not their stats.

Changes need to be made to the Hall's selection process. I don't think we need thousands of grandmasters of chess, but we need more room for fairness and inclusion.

Re Shannon Sharpe and blocking, here's a quote from him on why he didn't do this: "You don't make any money if you block. They call you a servant if you block. You make minimum plus tips."

Source: Sports Illustrated online, dated Nov. 2001. Link:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1024197/index.htm

One more thing -- I think campaigning on behalf of one or more candidates is not surprising. As they say, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease," and sometimes that's true. Some fan bases (Redskins, Cowboys, Raiders) have been doing so for years (Redskins fans seem to have taken this to a fine art), and others such as Bronco fans are aggressively learning how.

But campaigning is by nature going to focus on positives, not negatives or comparative negatives, and as a result it's definitely booster-ism and not necessarily a reliable indicator of HoF worth. To me, it's spin, clutter, and smoke screens, and I like my HoF cases made with minimal fan-base bias.

Man, reading through some of these comments reminds me of the complaints of college football fans towards the BCS system. I'm sure that the process will never please everyone, myself included, but I'd be wary of statements like the HOF needs to totally change their process. True, there will be some mistakes, and true, there will be some players who get in over others due to campaigning fanbases or what have you. But, really, that's how life is. I would also say that I don't subscribe to the idea that championships should not put a player above others with similar career numbers. Every team's goal each year is to win a SB, and players who contribute to multiple championships should get a little more consideration for their contributions to those championships. I also don't really think that a Namath is a mistake. Super Bowl III was a sort of turning point in NFL history. His guarantee and all that is a part of NFL lore. Some will, and have, argued that those intangibles shouldn't be considered in deciding HOF worthiness, but I disagree. Anyway, just my opinion.

Not sure about Hornung, but I'm pretty sure that Swann's boost is due to a Super Bowl MVP Award (the only WR with one for many years) and some of the most famous and acrobatic catches in NFL history. If he only had one such catch, a la David Tyree, I doubt he finally gets in, but he had two in one game, plus a couple more less famous catches as well. But, still, IMO, those impacts to the story of NFL history are significant enough to be worthy of HOF consideration. By the same token, I think that Ken Stabler deserves consideration due to such famous plays as the Holy Roller, Sea of Hands, and Ghost to the Post. Again, he wasn't involved in just a single famous play, but in at least 3 of the most famous plays in NFL history. As far as QBs, if any QB starts in 3+ SB wins, it seems that they are automatic first ballot HOFers. Hard to argue for me because the goal of every team is always a championship, not a 4000 passing yard season or to have a 1500 yard rusher or receiver.

Re: 19
Good thing it's a curse of 370 as opposed to 360. It just doesn't work when you include all the players who had 360-369 carries in a season but did not suffer a drop off.

My point is that 370 was a very, very convenient number for FO to use. There is a reason they made it 370 as opposed to 350.

I don't think any one of those guys has a shot at Canton this year. The conversation for wide receiver will begin and end with Jerry Rice. The Hall of Fame doesn't put multiple players of the same position in at the same time usually. Just not done.

It is very nice to see after all that calculating of numbers Cris Carter is rated as excellent to get in, but I wish it would just happen this year. I fear we will have to wait again.

I'm conflicted regarding the material presented here. I enjoy the evaluation a great deal, share the majority of opinon and understand the differences of opinon but this all seems to sabermetric to me. All this number crunching will only cloud the discusson. I enjoy numbers in context and with limits. Football is not baseball.

To be honest, I read through this blog and remembered an interesting statement about Andre Reed, namely a comment about him generally not having a great post-season career. One of the things that always stuck with me as a guy that likes noticing NFL history is that of the three main offensive players for Buffalo (including Thurman Thomas & Jim Kelly), Reed is the only one of the three to have had at least decent performances in multiple Super Bowls (Kelly never had a really good game, Thomas only had his S.B. XXV performance as the others saw him coughing up the ball like someone with a bad cold), and though he never dented the end zone in the big dance, he only had one really bad Super Bowl (vs. Washington).

Just thought I'd throw that out.

Dawson, are you seriously saying no WR ever made a sideline catch before Cris Carter? And a plus for Tim Brown's candidacy is that he was a very good kick returner, while Carter didn't do this.

Both belong in, of course.

Joe Namath's SB win was arguably the most important of all, as it tangibly showed that the AFL was on par with the NFL. Namath is also correctly considered to be a high-peak but fairly short-career type player. Looking at Namath from a career "counting stats" standpoint isn't the right approach to take here, if that's the thinking.

Whether all this is enough to merit Namath being in the HoF is of course another question. I think the point is debatable, to say the least. But to say Namath is in the HoF just because of a "guarantee" is not a fair assessment. And note well that if you're in favor of inducting Kurt Warner, his argument is essentially that of Namath's, without the significance to attach to Warner's lone SB win.

And there are several QBs in the HoF who had no championship game success, including Fran Tarkenton, Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Y.A. Tittle, Sonny Jurgensen, and Warren Moon. There's sufficient precedent for Jim Kelly to be a HoF-er as well.