Professional Football Researchers Association Forum
PFRA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the history of professional football. Formed in 1979, PFRA members include many of the game's foremost historians and writers.
Brian wolf wrote: ↑Sat Jul 06, 2024 4:30 pm
Tough to truly separate them in this inflated age, with defenses more handcuffed than ever.
and there is a way to kind of flatten receiving numbers ... Football Perspective is "True" yards ... they do some good work there. There are other ways --- for one ... just go by "per 16 games" or "per 14 games" or whatever.
Then, you can adjust based on different criteria. Problem is it is a lot of work to do everyone --
but if you make Evans go to 14 game season -- - it changes things ... and if one were to adjust for dead ball era -- where maybe
receiving numbers should be maybe 10% or 15% higher based just on number of passes ... (a group of people could establish fair "adjustments"
but even 14 games looks different for Evans and would for all recent guys -- but it's always going to be flawed and a tough sell
Attachments
2024-07-06_16-40-07.jpg (164.12 KiB) Viewed 8248 times
2024-07-06_16-34-12.jpg (68.82 KiB) Viewed 8249 times
^John, thank you for sharing this info. It's helpful to at least have an idea of quantification beyond eras. It is also difficult to calculate in the change in rules on defense across eras, which I am guessing are not included above?
Looks like Evans falls into the Top 25 when adjusting his numbers. Good to know!
sluggermatt15 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2024 11:16 am
^John, thank you for sharing this info. It's helpful to at least have an idea of quantification beyond eras. It is also difficult to calculate in the change in rules on defense across eras, which I am guessing are not included above?
Looks like Evans falls into the Top 25 when adjusting his numbers. Good to know!
no, changes in defense not included --- but a very rough flattening based on number of passes thrown --- so fewer passes equal a positive adjustment, a lot of passes equals a subtraction, 1950-69 no adjustments
If could be more scientific ... for sure ... but others would have to chime in as to what is a fair "adjustment"
Brian for the record evans is not a compliler far from it in fact I'm going to also disagree with your logic on Calvin and Andre Johnson it's Rather baffling
I understand Robert ... Johnston+Johnston had talent, with good size/speed ratio and lived up to their lofty draft status but while Calvin had a shorter career, Andre was handicapped by average QBs. Were they really that much better than the receivers still waiting for Canton? Just a matter of opinion ... with any other team, Calvin could have kept racking up the numbers but was done after nine years and still got in first ballot.
Like I already stated, in case you didn't read it, any player that stays healthy and productive will compile numbers. We can't knock them for that but Evans has more TDs than many receivers in the Hall and still might not get elected. Simply an inflated era.
Regarding Mike Evans and modern days WRs, I was talking with Ken Crippen recently about "small hall vs. big hall" and the subject of the backlog of WRs came up. He said something to the effect of, and I hope he doesn't mind me quoting/paraphrasing him.... If there's a backlog of WRs, and they keep cancelling each other out in the voting process, then none of them are Hall worthy since they weren't able to rise above and separate from their peers.
Ken if you're reading this please correct or clarify as needed.
ChrisBabcock wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 4:52 pm
Regarding Mike Evans and modern days WRs, I was talking with Ken Crippen recently about "small hall vs. big hall" and the subject of the backlog of WRs came up. He said something to the effect of, and I hope he doesn't mind me quoting/paraphrasing him.... If there's a backlog of WRs, and they keep cancelling each other out in the voting process, then none of them are Hall worthy since they weren't able to rise above and separate from their peers.
Ken if you're reading this please correct or clarify as needed.
That's essentially what I said. I am not a fan of the word "logjam." In the case of receivers, if you have a handful of them, and that handful grows every year because they are all the same, did they separate themselves? No. Therefore, are they HOFers? I say No.
ChrisBabcock wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 4:52 pm
Regarding Mike Evans and modern days WRs, I was talking with Ken Crippen recently about "small hall vs. big hall" and the subject of the backlog of WRs came up. He said something to the effect of, and I hope he doesn't mind me quoting/paraphrasing him.... If there's a backlog of WRs, and they keep cancelling each other out in the voting process, then none of them are Hall worthy since they weren't able to rise above and separate from their peers.
Ken if you're reading this please correct or clarify as needed.
That's essentially what I said. I am not a fan of the word "logjam." In the case of receivers, if you have a handful of them, and that handful grows every year because they are all the same, did they separate themselves? No. Therefore, are they HOFers? I say No.
Just my $0.02 USD.
Could these receivers have arguments to be seen as Hall of Very Good years down the line?
WRs are all over the place --- the "per 16 games" does not adjust for era, so some of those numbers look low
but among those not in Hall, separation is hard to do
2024-07-09_16-48-08.jpg (158.8 KiB) Viewed 8019 times
2024-07-09_16-48-36.jpg (149.57 KiB) Viewed 8019 times
2024-07-09_16-48-56.jpg (169.98 KiB) Viewed 8019 times
ChrisBabcock wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2024 4:52 pm
Regarding Mike Evans and modern days WRs, I was talking with Ken Crippen recently about "small hall vs. big hall" and the subject of the backlog of WRs came up. He said something to the effect of, and I hope he doesn't mind me quoting/paraphrasing him.... If there's a backlog of WRs, and they keep cancelling each other out in the voting process, then none of them are Hall worthy since they weren't able to rise above and separate from their peers.
Ken if you're reading this please correct or clarify as needed.
That's essentially what I said. I am not a fan of the word "logjam." In the case of receivers, if you have a handful of them, and that handful grows every year because they are all the same, did they separate themselves? No. Therefore, are they HOFers? I say No.
Just my $0.02 USD.
Could these receivers have arguments to be seen as Hall of Very Good years down the line?
