Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Apparently Anquan Boldin has retired.

Too bad for his HoF chances, am guessing. His major argument was as a compiler, but currently I don't think he's high up enough in career stats to make a great case. 9th in catches, 14th in receiving yards, and 23rd in receiving TDs (and those numbers will probably drop over the next five years before he's eligible). His honors of 0/3/none aren't earth shattering either.

Had he added about 30 catches, 1300 receiving yards, and 18 TDs, that would have left him in much better shape. He probably could have done so with about two okay seasons tacked on.

Definitely a HoVG type, though.

Yes clear HOVG. Respected as a tough no nonsense receiver. Physical, tough to bring down. Just not enough purely dominant years aside from his 1st and 3rd season

Brings up something interesting I've been thinking about which is whether a player with a unique style should be thought of a little differently. Boldin, in this era anyway, was very unique - Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Tim Brown were all great, but in an almost normal way - they were a little faster, had a little better hands, ran very good routes, and all these little-betters added up to great careers. Conversely - and I personally don't like him - a Cris Carter at least made me want to watch. Boldin is a bit like that. Pending what happens with the Raiders Marshawn Lynch will be another case, probably HOVG numbers, but a guy you'd buy a ticket for any day. For Quarterbacking I'd rank the class of 04 Rivers, Ben, Eli for effectiveness, but Ben is really special to watch (Not making a ringz argument, that's not Rivers' fault, nor Eli's doing). Just stuff I've been mulling over.

NWebster wrote:Brings up something interesting I've been thinking about which is whether a player with a unique style should be thought of a little differently. Boldin, in this era anyway, was very unique - Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Tim Brown were all great, but in an almost normal way - they were a little faster, had a little better hands, ran very good routes, and all these little-betters added up to great careers. Conversely - and I personally don't like him - a Cris Carter at least made me want to watch. Boldin is a bit like that. Pending what happens with the Raiders Marshawn Lynch will be another case, probably HOVG numbers, but a guy you'd buy a ticket for any day. For Quarterbacking I'd rank the class of 04 Rivers, Ben, Eli for effectiveness, but Ben is really special to watch (Not making a ringz argument, that's not Rivers' fault, nor Eli's doing). Just stuff I've been mulling over.

You make a good point. Can an exciting style raise a HOVG player above his HOVG peers and into Hall of Fame status?

I'd lean towards no, I'm looking for greatness and I don't care how a player does it, just as long as he does it. Once in a rare while you have a player who can combine the two. Barry Sanders, Rice, Deion Sanders, Earl Campbell and his devastating style and domination etc. But mostly I just feel that it unfairly elevates some guys. DeSean Jackson, Lynch, Lynn Swann, Michael Vick. These guys are all going to be remembered as being a lot better than they actually were

sheajets wrote:But mostly I just feel that it unfairly elevates some guys. DeSean Jackson, Lynch, Lynn Swann, Michael Vick. These guys are all going to be remembered as being a lot better than they actually were

I think greatness stands the test of time. I thought it was interesting how quickly Michael Vick fell off the radar...he was still in the league and was a non-entity. That said, I'll always remember Vick because of his unique talent. Is it fair that a guy like Vick will be remembered more than a guy like Marc Bulger, who was a 'better' QB? My response to that question would be a shrug of the shoulders...who cares? Like Sergio Dipp, some guys are memorable and others aren't. Being memorable and being great are two different things, IMO.

As for Swann, he was a unique talent that made outstanding plays against top competition in the biggest games. Not sure why Swann is lumped in with DeSean Jackson and Mike Vick...Swann is almost the exact opposite of those guys. I know its 'en vogue' to bash Swann for being overrated, but his style overshadows the fact that he was indeed a player of substance. Swann was better than his peers. Cliff Branch has the stats, but Swann could have performed Branch's role or Biletnikoff's role in the Raider offense. He could get open deep. He could make people miss after the catch. He could go over the middle. The total package. I think Swann's 'remembrance' is justified, if that is what is somehow being argued here.

Bryan wrote: Like Sergio Dipp, some guys are memorable and others aren't.

Being memorable and being great are two different things, IMO.

1. Ha. Nice Dipp reference.

2. Yup. As are being famous and being great which is more of an issue with HOF's since "fame" is in the name so the literal have managed to forge together fame/greatness as synonymous.