Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

We've been over this, but for the new iteration of the forum, and with some new info, perhaps we can rehash.

Since both are on Final 15 and both made the Final 10 last time, if you had to choose one over the other who would it be?
Individual achievement versus great team success.

I couch it that way because even though Haley has plenty of individual achievments, Greene, when it is looked at over a career is higher in most categories. The voters have supported both and by making them in the final 10 have deemed them HOF worthy.

What are pros and cons for Greene versus Haley?

I think a "pro" for Greene is that when he went to a new team, that team immediately became much better on defense. Greene played with high-energy for a very long time and I think thats why his statistical achievements are a tad bit better than most of his peers. Haley to me was more hit-or-miss when it came to giving a top effort, and I think there are just too many great pass rushers in Haley's era that should overshadow him (Greene for one).

I just looked at their stats...Greene has 160 sacks to Haley's 100. I didn't realize how big of a gap there was. Greene has 10 seasons with double-digit sacks, and additional season with 9 sacks. Haley has 6 seasons with double-digit sacks. Greene was incredibly productive between ages 30-37.

Never understood why Greene doesn't get more respect as one of the greatest. The stock answer is he was just a pass rush guy. Sure, but a damn good one and, at least empirically, one of the best ever.

Bryan wrote:I think a "pro" for Greene is that when he went to a new team, that team immediately became much better on defense. Greene played with high-energy for a very long time and I think thats why his statistical achievements are a tad bit better than most of his peers. Haley to me was more hit-or-miss when it came to giving a top effort, and I think there are just too many great pass rushers in Haley's era that should overshadow him (Greene for one).

I just looked at their stats...Greene has 160 sacks to Haley's 100. I didn't realize how big of a gap there was. Greene has 10 seasons with double-digit sacks, and additional season with 9 sacks. Haley has 6 seasons with double-digit sacks. Greene was incredibly productive between ages 30-37.

Essentially Haley's back went out and was not productive after 1995, whereas Greene was good in 1995-98 in terms of production.

Greene had 60 stuffs versus 38 for Haley. Haley had more FF, 26 to 23. Greene recovered a bunch of fumbles. Over their careers, Greene's teams allowed 3.9 yards a rush, Haley's 3.7, Greene's teams averaged 42 sacks a season with Greene accounting for 24% of them, Haley's teams averaged 40 sacks a season with Haley accounting for 21% of those.

Haley's honors
ALL-PRO
1990 LB (AP, PFWA, NEA, PFW) • 1994 DE (AP, PFWA, SN)

PRO BOWLS
(5) – 1988, 1990, 1991, 1994, 1995

NFC Defensive Player of the Year
(2) – 1990 (UPI, KC101), 1994 (UPI, KC101)

Greene's honors
ALL-PRO
1989 (NEA, SN) • 1994 (AP, PFWA, SN) • 1996 (AP, PFWA)

PRO BOWLS
(5) – 1989, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998

NFL Defensive Player of the Year
(1) – 1996 (NEA)

NFC Defensive Player of the Year
(1) – 1996 (UPI, KC101)

NFL Linebacker of the Year
(1) – 1996 (NFL Alumni)

NFC Linebacker of the Year
(2) – 1996 (NFLPA), 1998 (NFLPA)

AFC Linebacker of the Year
(1) – 1994 (NFLPA)

I saw a quote from Greene a couple weeks ago where he said something along the lines of that he was better than L.T. because he played longer and was more productive . . .

Reaser wrote:I saw a quote from Greene a couple weeks ago where he said something along the lines of that he was better than L.T. because he played longer and was more productive . . .

“I have the utmost respect for Lawrence Taylor,” Greene told me. “I tried to emulate him and I did all I could be try and be like L.T.

and playing the same position as Lawrence Taylor, and playing longer than the great L.T. and actually being more productive as far as quarterback sacks, and he was known as the sack master, the guy that revolutionized the position.”

JohnTurney wrote:“I have the utmost respect for Lawrence Taylor,” Greene told me. “I tried to emulate him and I did all I could be try and be like L.T.

and playing the same position as Lawrence Taylor, and playing longer than the great L.T. and actually being more productive as far as quarterback sacks, and he was known as the sack master, the guy that revolutionized the position.”

This is the quote I saw: "I know I came after Lawrence Taylor but I’d like to think I did it longer, and did it better, if you look at the numbers and production it pretty much speaks for itself."

but I see that it all came from the same conversation.

I liked Greene but never thought of his as a HOF'er while watching him. I'd really like to see someone put together an argument for him without using the glorified TFL stat.

Reaser wrote:

JohnTurney wrote:
I liked Greene but never thought of his as a HOF'er while watching him. I'd really like to see someone put together an argument for him without using the glorified TFL stat.

What is a glorified TFL stat? Do you mean his 160 sacks? or the 60 stuffs?

JohnTurney wrote:What is a glorified TFL stat? Do you mean his 160 sacks? or the 60 stuffs?

Sacks. It wasn't in direct response to you. I meant in general I'd like to see an argument for Greene without using sacks.

I've always thought sacks were an overrated stat and I've never liked how much emphasis is placed on sacks - in terms of quality of player - for HOF, DPOY, All-Pro, Pro Bowl, etc ... If someone finishes a season with 16 sacks everyone goes crazy and it was a 'great season', but in reality 16 sacks is just making a play 16 times, out of hundreds of plays. Plus not all sacks are created equal; did the QB trip and fall, was there pressure from one side that forced the QB to 'run' into a sack on the other, coverage sacks, missed blocking assignments, etc ...

Reaser wrote:

JohnTurney wrote:What is a glorified TFL stat? Do you mean his 160 sacks? or the 60 stuffs?

Sacks. It wasn't in direct response to you. I meant in general I'd like to see an argument for Greene without using sacks.

I've always thought sacks were an overrated stat and I've never liked how much emphasis is placed on sacks - in terms of quality of player - for HOF, DPOY, All-Pro, Pro Bowl, etc ... If someone finishes a season with 16 sacks everyone goes crazy and it was a 'great season', but in reality 16 sacks is just making a play 16 times, out of hundreds of plays. Plus not all sacks are created equal; did the QB trip and fall, was there pressure from one side that forced the QB to 'run' into a sack on the other, coverage sacks, missed blocking assignments, etc ...

I've heard that argument . .. kind of like homers in baseball. Way back when the Ty Cobbs of the world looked down on them . . . until Babe Ruth. But in football most, if not all, stats are skewed. If a guy gets a pick was it a "pressure pick"? Or did a guy drop 4-5 ints in a certain season. And did teams throw away from a certain side, etc. So it goes, but when you watch film and focus on dlinemen, over a season or over a few seasons, the best pass rushers get the most sacks. Sure there are those things you mention, but over 16 games or over 32 games or 100 games, the guys who can consistently beat an olinemen are the ones with the most sacks. And often the ones who get the most holding calls drawn and most double-teams as well. The elite just somehow separate themselves.

Where I think sacks are overdone is thinking that's all someone has to do. There are plenty of great pass rushers who got up the field and then couldn't react when run showed. Others can do that. Others cut down their rush a hair on likely running downs to make sure they cover their gap. But all things considered . . . sacks do gage a certain success and in this case that success is a sack, which is a big play that can change a game. Quarterback knockdowns, hits and hurries can, too.

In the case of Greene, if it were just sacks and he was not solid versus run, he wouldn't be a good candidate, but over time he proved to be efficient and he played on teams that nine times out of ten were good versus the run, so he wasn't some liability that was exploited like some of the pass rushers we can all name.