HOF Finalists named

[JohnTurney]

Over his career, he was collectively 565-709 in FG's, 80 percent, while the rest of the league was a collective 15,681-20,572, or 76 percent.

During the regular season, Morten Andersen scored approximately 127 points more than an average NFL kicker from his era would have scored attempting the same field goals from the same distances, according to my Kicker rating system. That 127 points is currently the second highest total of any kicker in pro football history (only behind Nick Lowery) and the only other kicker who might possibly top him for second place is Lou Groza and I don't have all the missed FG distance for Groza and his contemporaries. Andersen was the greatest kicker between Stenerud and Vinatieri, clearly the best of his generation, and a deserving Hall of Famer.

Since 1999 they have a FGplus minus category----but there is no explanation of the formula---any idea?

[JuggernautJ]

Hines Ward changed the NFL with his blocking excellence, NFL Films chronicled this fact, and they're a very objective source. Prior to Ward, there were good blocking WRs, but he took it to another level, and blocking by the WR position became much more recognized during his career. Ward's blocking helped a HOF back, and his receiving talents helped power a two time SB champ, and a contender for years. The Steelers had many nationally televised games during those years, and the evidence is on tape. You almost never saw an iso of Ward getting blown up on a block, because it happened so rarely.

....I can't think of a single TE, never mind WR, for whom blocking prowess made any difference in their HoF case. In fact, several TEs are in the HoF despite their lack of blocking skills (Shannon Sharpe, Ozzie Newsome, Kellen Winslow). If it doesn't matter for TEs who are supposed to have this ability, why does it matter for WRs?

Vive la difference of opinions... ?

[L.C. Greenwood]

...Ward also changed the game with his blocking excellence...

How did he do that?

The "Hines Ward rule" ... Blindsiding guys as a sign of his 'toughness' - always the defenders fault for not having their head on a swivel, in my opinion. Though I also never understood how people would be quick to point to those hits as a sign of Ward being tough.

I think anyone taking an honest and neutral approach, along with a large serving of common sense, would say that if/when Ward is ever a HOF'er it'll 100% be because he played for the Steelers. If he had played for any other team and with exact equal production/accomplishments he would never even be thought of to be mentioned on these forums or anywhere else in HOF discussions.

Hines Ward's career is intertwined with that of a successful franchise, ditto for other great players who played key roles for championship clubs. There's no favoritism involved, we can speculate about other HOF players with losing clubs and whether or not they would have been elected forever. The reality shows a player who was a tremendous blocker, really helped to raise the profile of this skill during his career. Ward's toughness went well beyond the blocking, I've never seen Ed Reed or Rod Woodson get hit so hard by a WR. Whether it was going over the middle for a crucial first down catch and getting blasted by linebackers, or his stellar postseason play, this will inevitably be a HOF selection.

When Larry Fitzgerald was praised for his work in Arizona, it's talked about as the "Hines Ward role". That's an unselfish move inside, helping the team, blocking does matter when evaluating the WR position. Comparing Andre Reed with Ward leaves out the fact Reed had a HOF QB for nearly all his career, quite an advantage over Ward. No one is suggesting Ward is an inner circle HOF WR, but he definitely qualifies as an outer circle player.

[conace21]

I'll sum it up: Davis had talent and was a good fit for the Denver offense. As I said, his numbers were better than his successors; nobody else put up 2000 yards. But none of the others played with Elway. I think that Gary, Anderson, Bell, could have and would have rushed for 1400-1500 yards on that Broncos team. Davis did slightly better for two year and much better for one. For three years. Davis was a very good player in a system that maximized his talents. Not great. I still may have supported his candidacy in certain years, depending on who his competitors were. This year, I was pulling for Alan Faneca. Davis was an All Pro three times. Faneca was an All Pro seven times, and had two or three other strong years.

Odd to say he was "not great" (a not-great MVP, a not-great 2xOPOY, a not-great leading player on 2 championship teams?) but that you may have supported his candidacy in certain years, but okay. System that maximized his talents arguments are always obvious, like Joe Montana was in the perfect system for him. We can only go on what did happen. Davis earned the Broncos job and he was great, if he wasn't he wouldn't have accomplished what he did.

The system. Davis was the start of that in Denver so that's a bit different from jumping on a train that's already rolling. He's the one that got it rolling and it rolled better with him than his successors. So a hypothetical saying that another back would have had a good season in place of him but not as good as what Davis' did still comes out in Davis' favor. It's basically saying that the "system" would get the average RB x amount of yards but Davis surpassed that, which again comes out in Davis' favor.

As for playing with Elway - and obviously not a prime Elway - Elway didn't 'create' a bunch of great RB's pre-Davis so I'm not sure how much of a factor that is. I would say the quarter of the season that Brister (Bubby Brister!) was in that Davis still was the same back, without Elway. Plus, even when he wasn't what he was during his final season and with Anderson and Gary as teammates I'd still say he was the best back on the team that year, too. With Griese and Gus at QB.

I don't think it's odd at all. Davis was a very good player who had a couple of great years, playing with a legendary quarterback, and a dominant offensive line. See: Shaun Alexander, Priest Holmes, Jamal Lewis.
Davis was a "B" player who had a couple "A" seasons. Why is that so hard to believe? A number of "C" backs produced "B+" seasons in Denver's system.

Davis started the train rolling because he was Mike Shanahan's first passenger; they began in Denver the same year. I agree with your assessment of the system and Davis, as that proves my point. And that's where longevity comes in. Davis was not a transcendent- once in a lifetime- player like Gale Sayers, where three great seasons and one very good season is enough.

As for Elway, he may not have been in his prime, but he sure played like it. Credit must be given to his supporting cast and to Shanahan, but Elway's stats were much better the last four seasons than before. His rushing yards didn't even really fall until 1998.

[Reaser]

Davis was a very good player who had a couple of great years

Ah, I see. So he had "a couple great years" (i.e. he was great) but because he didn't have enough seasons played/longevity after that, he wasn't great and was just a very good player.

I see the disconnect between our opinions.

Thanks for taking the time to explain yours.

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

Hines Ward changed the NFL with his blocking excellence, NFL Films chronicled this fact, and they're a very objective source. Prior to Ward, there were good blocking WRs, but he took it to another level, and blocking by the WR position became much more recognized during his career. Ward's blocking helped a HOF back, and his receiving talents helped power a two time SB champ, and a contender for years. The Steelers had many nationally televised games during those years, and the evidence is on tape. You almost never saw an iso of Ward getting blown up on a block, because it happened so rarely.

....I can't think of a single TE, never mind WR, for whom blocking prowess made any difference in their HoF case. In fact, several TEs are in the HoF despite their lack of blocking skills (Shannon Sharpe, Ozzie Newsome, Kellen Winslow). If it doesn't matter for TEs who are supposed to have this ability, why does it matter for WRs?

Vive la difference of opinions... ?

I can't find a source article now, but I remember that when Art Monk finally got inducted, one of the things that pushed the last couple of naysayers over to the yes side was a pitch from Joe Gibbs. Gibbs told them that in his offense, Monk basically operated as a tight end, and that his blocking was as integral to their success as his receiving. Sounds a little hyperbolic, but it also makes some sense. And if true, that there would be a WR who wasn't getting in on his receiving, but who made it in once his blocking prowess got its due.

EDIT: Found a link.

http://www.footballperspective.com/vern ... -art-monk/

[L.C. Greenwood]

Hines Ward changed the NFL with his blocking excellence, NFL Films chronicled this fact, and they're a very objective source. Prior to Ward, there were good blocking WRs, but he took it to another level, and blocking by the WR position became much more recognized during his career. Ward's blocking helped a HOF back, and his receiving talents helped power a two time SB champ, and a contender for years. The Steelers had many nationally televised games during those years, and the evidence is on tape. You almost never saw an iso of Ward getting blown up on a block, because it happened so rarely.

....I can't think of a single TE, never mind WR, for whom blocking prowess made any difference in their HoF case. In fact, several TEs are in the HoF despite their lack of blocking skills (Shannon Sharpe, Ozzie Newsome, Kellen Winslow). If it doesn't matter for TEs who are supposed to have this ability, why does it matter for WRs?

Vive la difference of opinions... ?

I can't find a source article now, but I remember that when Art Monk finally got inducted, one of the things that pushed the last couple of naysayers over to the yes side was a pitch from Joe Gibbs. Gibbs told them that in his offense, Monk basically operated as a tight end, and that his blocking was as integral to their success as his receiving. Sounds a little hyperbolic, but it also makes some sense. And if true, that there would be a WR who wasn't getting in on his receiving, but who made it in once his blocking prowess got its due.

EDIT: Found a link.

http://www.footballperspective.com/vern ... -art-monk/

Yes, blocking was an asset for Art Monk, he was known as a strong blocker. Not all the WRs in the HOF were mediocre to poor blockers. The difference with Hines Ward was notice around the league, media coverage, and influence. Monk was a converted RB who blocked well, and that was reflected in the coverage of those games. But I don't recall Monk delivering blocks which staggered HOF players like Ed Reed and Rod Woodson. Ward's blocking was often on the TV isolation replays as he helped block for a HOF RB for years. In time, we started having discussion about the value of WR blocking not only in the pros, but college and high school as well. It went from being an incidental trait you'd like to see, to something which more emphasis is placed. Because this can't be quantified with stats, that's where the mystery comes in. Also, much has been said about Ward's yards per reception average, but this was a WR with one ACL, and without the blazing speed other receivers had. Getting big chunks of yardage just wasn't going to happen.

[Bryan]

Yes, blocking was an asset for Art Monk, he was known as a strong blocker. Not all the WRs in the HOF were mediocre to poor blockers. The difference with Hines Ward was notice around the league, media coverage, and influence. Monk was a converted RB who blocked well, and that was reflected in the coverage of those games. But I don't recall Monk delivering blocks which staggered HOF players like Ed Reed and Rod Woodson. Ward's blocking was often on the TV isolation replays as he helped block for a HOF RB for years. In time, we started having discussion about the value of WR blocking not only in the pros, but college and high school as well. It went from being an incidental trait you'd like to see, to something which more emphasis is placed. Because this can't be quantified with stats, that's where the mystery comes in. Also, much has been said about Ward's yards per reception average, but this was a WR with one ACL, and without the blazing speed other receivers had. Getting big chunks of yardage just wasn't going to happen.

I remember prior to Hines Ward, the Steelers trumpeted Charles Johnson as being the "best blocking WR in the NFL". I couldn't really agree or disagree with this subjective statement, and all I took it to mean was that Johnson wasn't that great of a WR (and perhaps the Steelers trying to justify the 1st round pick they spent on Johnson). I think at some point it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy...Ward gets a rep for his blocking, so TV cameras will iso him on running plays, and then show you his blocks when they happen. Does that mean Ward was a better blocking WR than Paul Warfield, Bob Chandler, JD Hill, etc.? I think its a really difficult argument to make in terms of HOF worthiness, due to the subjectivity involved.

Here is a comparison out of nowhere...Gene Washington (Niners version) was one of my favorite WRs and perhaps the most feared WR of the early 70's. From 1969-72 he went to 4 pro bowls and was consensus 1st team All Pro 3 times. He was usually at his best against the toughest defenses. But he has no shot of making the HOF. He doesn't have good career totals, went over 1000 yards once in his career, and was sometimes confused with Gene Washington of the Vikes. When I compare Washington to Hines Ward, I view Washington as being the much better WR. Ward never led the NFL in any receiving category. He never earned an All-Pro mention. I would say that even on his own team, guys like Burress and Holmes were the more feared WRs. I guess my point is that if you have to use subjective criteria like 'blocking' to put Hines Ward in the HOF, then I think other subjective criteria like "were defenses afraid of your ability" work against Ward.

[Reaser]

I think at some point it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy...Ward gets a rep for his blocking, so TV cameras will iso him on running plays, and then show you his blocks when they happen.

This.

And ha at the implications that Ward invented blocking by a WR and that there had never in the history of football been an emphasis on WR's blocking before Ward or that high school and college coaches started putting an emphasis on WR's blocking only after Ward. That discounts so much of football history (all levels), obviously. Ward certainly didn't invent stalk blocking or make it a priority (all levels/history of football). At best he made famous blindside hits coming from an offensive player, but definitely wasn't the first WR to block or the first to be considered good at it. He wasn't even the first WR to ever cut a DB at his knees.

Credit for the outstanding hyperbole, however.

I remember when Keyshawn Johnson was the "best blocking-WR" in the league. Perhaps if he didn't have an attitude or probably more importantly if he had played for the Steelers he would be the one getting this undue first-to-do-it credit.

Not to say Hines wasn't a good blocker. Though a LOT of the media credit he was given as a great blocker came because of blindside shots and those would be replayed over and over as a sign of his toughness and great blocking. I liked them but it's not a sign of toughness and as singular highlights they don't speak for the play-to-play blocking ability - which I still think Ward was a good blocking-WR but not because I saw him destroy a DB who didn't have his head on a swivel.

[BD Sullivan]

Jim Brown was long criticized (including by Paul Brown) for his lack of blocking effort/ability. Maybe the Browns should have gotten rid of him because of this flaw.