HoF semifinalist list released

[JWL]

-how do we know historically how good a blocker Ward was compared to other WRs anyway? If we believe those pushing his case, he was the greatest blocking WR in NFL history. What’s the truth here?

Film study has shown Hines Ward to be the best blocker of all time. If he couldn't catch well, he would have been a guard and would have made John Hannah look like a bum.

I don't have my irony/sarcasm meter on. Was this meant to be taken at face value?

It was a joke.

[conace21]

HInes Ward should likely get in...but not for the reasons you would want him to (played for a marquee franchise, SB-MVP). I know it's based on theory, but one could only imagine if he had been strictly a pass-catcher ("give me the ball"-prima donna) his entire career - putting up the numbers. He simply loved to block, perhaps more-so than pass-catching, and did a lot of it. Yes, he wasn't the only WR ever to block a lot, but still. He may have very well 'blocked' himself out of Canton; if he ends up not getting in, that is. End of day, he should at least be sure-fire/shoe-in HOVG. I know that there's no 'stats' or 'numbers' for blocking, but I wish the committee would put that (eye test, film study) into consideration with such receivers and also RBs that simply may have blocked too much for their own (Canton) good.

I continually see people who push hard for Ward and cite blocking as an important component of his HoF argument. Two problems with this:

-no WR — and in fact no TE — is in the HoF for their great blocking skills as far as I know.

I would say Dave Casper is in the Hall of Fame for his blocking as much as receiving. He was originally a tackle at Notre Dame. Mike Ditka was the first tight end to gain 1,000 yards in a season, but he was a fine blocker. I don't think there was a tight end who made the HOF despite being an average blocker until Kellen Winsolow.

Now, I'm sure blocking did not come up in Jerry Rice's Hall of Fame debate. His receiving stats made him an easy choice.
However, if someone was making a case for Rice as the best NFL player ever, his blocking ability may well become part of the argument. It serves as validation that he was not a prima donna above the physical part of the game, a la Deion Sanders.

I think that Jim Brown was the greatest runner in NFL history, but Walter Payton was the best running back. Why? Payton was more versatile. He had the most receptions of any running back when he retired, and was a fine blocker.

[rewing84]

Here's my opinion. I'm no "expert", but I look at players who should be in the HoF as the greatest, best ever, in the history of the game. I don't vote based on, hey this guy should be in case so-and-so is in.

Steve Atwater - NO
Ronde Barber - NO
Tony Boselli - NO
Isaac Bruce - NO
LeRoy Butler - YES
Don Coryell - NO
Roger Craig - NO
Brian Dawkins - YES
Alan Faneca - YES
Torry Holt - NO
Steve Hutchinson - YES
Joe Jacoby - YES/NO coin flip
Edgerrin James - NO
Jimmy Johnson - NO (I have him ahead of Don Coryell, but if you put JJ in, then there's 5+ other coaches who ought to be in ahead of him)
Ty Law - NO
Ray Lewis - YES
John Lynch - NO
Kevin Mawae - YES/NO coin flip
Karl Mecklenburg - YES
Randy Moss - YES
Leslie O’Neal - NO
Terrell Owens - YES
Simeon Rice - NO
Richard Seymour - NO
Brian Urlacher - YES
Everson Walls - NO
Hines Ward - NO

Of the WRs on this list, I think Moss/TO are more deserving than Holt/Bruce/Ward. The latter 3 were great, but not on the same level as Moss/TO, even though neither of Moss/TO won a Super Bowl.

I have Jimmy Johnson ahead of Don Coryell. Johnson won 2 SBs and they were back-to-back. He also had to play under Jerry Jones who has unrealistic sky-high expectations and sometimes, IMO, doesn't know what he's doing.

IMO LeRoy Butler & Brian Dawkins had better careers than Ronde Barber and John Lynch. Barber and Lynch were great but not as good as Dawkins.

do we really need to use the greatest argument because I find that silly

[Bryan]

I continually see people who push hard for Ward and cite blocking as an important component of his HoF argument. Two problems with this:

-no WR — and in fact no TE — is in the HoF for their great blocking skills as far as I know.

-how do we know historically how good a blocker Ward was compared to other WRs anyway? If we believe those pushing his case, he was the greatest blocking WR in NFL history. What’s the truth here?

The 'blocking' angle was part of the Art Monk HOF Campaign, which is really a smart tactic because it can boost a 'borderline' candidate like Monk. Not only is there no real way to 'disprove' the blocking argument, there isn't even a way to provide any relativity to the argument. Monk really was a good blocker, but how much 'better' was he than the average NFL WR at blocking, and what value do we place on that 'better blocking'? John Riggins seemed to do just fine in the 1982 postseason with Alvin Garrett blocking for him in place of an injured Art Monk.

Another borderline HOF guy who IMO was a really good blocking WR was Andre Reed. I don't remember the blocking angle being a big part of his HOF Campaign, but perhaps it did come in to play at some point?

I think blocking is important, and I think there might be some merit to it in the cases of Monk and Reed, but Ward IMO just wasn't the same receiving threat as Monk and Reed. Its almost as if there is an imaginary sliding HOF WR scale, where you can be lower on the 'receiving' side as long as you are extremely high on the 'blocking' side. Is that right? I'm not sure. What I do know is that prior to Hines Ward's arrival in Pittsburgh, the alleged best blocking WR in the NFL was Pittsburgh's Charles Johnson. I interpreted that to mean "Pittsburgh spent a 1st round pick on a guy who drops half the passes thrown his way, but here is how we can justify his draft selection".

[sluggermatt15]

@rewing84 - Why not? Then what is the purpose of the HoF? Is it not to honor the best players and contributors to the game of football?

[L.C. Greenwood]

The 'blocking' angle was part of the Art Monk HOF Campaign, which is really a smart tactic because it can boost a 'borderline' candidate like Monk. Not only is there no real way to 'disprove' the blocking argument, there isn't even a way to provide any relativity to the argument. Monk really was a good blocker, but how much 'better' was he than the average NFL WR at blocking, and what value do we place on that 'better blocking'? John Riggins seemed to do just fine in the 1982 postseason with Alvin Garrett blocking for him in place of an injured Art Monk.

Another borderline HOF guy who IMO was a really good blocking WR was Andre Reed. I don't remember the blocking angle being a big part of his HOF Campaign, but perhaps it did come in to play at some point?

I think blocking is important, and I think there might be some merit to it in the cases of Monk and Reed, but Ward IMO just wasn't the same receiving threat as Monk and Reed. Its almost as if there is an imaginary sliding HOF WR scale, where you can be lower on the 'receiving' side as long as you are extremely high on the 'blocking' side. Is that right? I'm not sure. What I do know is that prior to Hines Ward's arrival in Pittsburgh, the alleged best blocking WR in the NFL was Pittsburgh's Charles Johnson. I interpreted that to mean "Pittsburgh spent a 1st round pick on a guy who drops half the passes thrown his way, but here is how we can justify his draft selection".[/quote]

Art Monk and Andre Reed were just faster receivers than Hines Ward, so it's natural they would have advantages in yardage and yards per catch. Despite playing longer, Reed has only two more receiving TDs, while Monk has 17 fewer than Ward. So Ward may not have been quite the pure receiving threat in terms of running he full route tree, but he did his damage in other ways. The blocking was something we saw on a regular basis, but Ward's gift of grab on those inside patterns was huge. He was a better, more durable Wes Welker, minus the costly drops. And we should point out, Reed and Monk enjoyed superior QB play for the early part of their careers, while Ward had the likes of Kordell Stewart and Tommy Maddox throwing to him.

Impressive lifetime TD record, 1000 career receptions, and a strong postseason history are all part of the ledger. I don't think the blocking is the main part of the case, just something which augments the body of work.

[rewing84]

@rewing84 - Why not? Then what is the purpose of the HoF? Is it not to honor the best players and contributors to the game of football?

Fair Point sluggermatt15

what should be the most interesting debate among the semis

[rewing84]

My Finalists Feel Free To Critique

Boselli Bruce Dawkins Faneca Hutchinson Jacoby Law Lewis Lynch Mawae Moss O Neal Owens Seymour Urlacher

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

Ward was really filling the role of a tight end (maybe the position should be called loose end?) in those Pro Bowl years while the team was transitioning at both QB and RB. They didn’t have a pass catching TE on the roster, didn’t have much in the way of receivers after him and Burress, and of the backs, only Zereoue could catch. Ward did all the same stuff Monk did on those Redskins teams.

2004 comes and his line looks like a decrease - 15 fewer catches, 150 fewer yards, 6 fewer touchdowns. But the team went from 526 pass attempts to 350, with a rookie QB. The next year, his role changes. Burress is gone, they have Heath Miller, and now he’s going downfield more. They still aren’t throwing much - 375 attempts on the year, so Ward’s 114 targets are significant, and his 69 catches (his lowest number in years) is 30% of the team’s 228 receptions. The next few years he’s competing for air time, playing a more traditional role and has that great year with Santonio Holmes in 2009. Then he’s basically done.

Do the selectors vote in guys like that, where so much needs to get broken down? They didn’t with Art Monk, whose numbers were WAY more impressive (given their respective times), not until Joe Gibbs went and spoke to a bunch of them and explained exactly what Monk’s role in that offense was.

Who’s going to go and explain Ward’s role? And will they care that he had those four great seasons with less than stellar QB play? If they cared about that, Harold Jackson would have gotten in ages ago. Hell, Keyshawn Johnson might get a look if they considered that as a factor.

I don’t know, Ward at the time never seemed like a Hall guy to me. Never thought he was a top five guy at any point in his career, but his skill set certainly looks pretty unique.