stuckinny Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 and how many of those does Cris Carter have... which is even more proof andre needs to be there. I didn't think Cokehead Irvin deserved to get in so quickly, but could be the homer in me
dave mcbride Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Baseball stat guys who focus on the HOF look at two things - overall stats and a player's top five year window for WAR. There is no WAR in the NFL, but given how injuries impact player longevity in the NFL, I love the idea of the elite five year window. Here is Reed vs. Michael Irvin: Reed: 1988-1992 (his best run; he had only one top level season after this, in 1994 plus a solid one in 1996): 376 receptions for 5251 yards and 36 TDs. That works out to an average yearly total of 75 receptions, 1050 yards, a 14.0 ypc average, and 7.2 TDs per season. Irvin: 1991-1995 (he had a couple of good seasons after this, but his career was cut short by injury; he also missed most of the 1989 season because of injury): 449 receptions for 7093 yards and 38 TDs. That works out to an average yearly total of 90 receptions, 1,419 yards, a 15.8 ypc average, and 7.6 TDs per season. That's a significant difference, and it's not as if Irvin didn't play on a run-heavy team. Basically, at his peak, he was a better -- and definitely more feared -- player than Reed. His five-year average of 1,419 yps average in that span is over 50 yards higher than Reed ever achieved in one season in his entire 16-year career. Reed was a very, very good player with a couple of great seasons, but he wasn't elite. He did, however, play for a very long time and was productive from his rookie season onward. That early production pads the overall totals although he wasn't a great player in his first couple of seasons (there was simply no one else to throw to on the Bills). Thurman Thomas and Bruce Smith were elite. Reed was akin to Bennett, another excellent player who had a terrific career. I don't think he deserves to go into the HOF, but I will be happy if he does.
34-78-83 Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Baseball stat guys who focus on the HOF look at two things - overall stats and a player's top five year window for WAR. There is no WAR in the NFL, but given how injuries impact player longevity in the NFL, I love the idea of the elite five year window. Here is Reed vs. Michael Irvin: Reed: 1988-1992 (his best run; he had only one top level season after this, in 1994 plus a solid one in 1996): 376 receptions for 5251 yards and 36 TDs. That works out to an average yearly total of 75 receptions, 1050 yards, a 14.0 ypc average, and 7.2 TDs per season. Irvin: 1991-1995 (he had a couple of good seasons after this, but his career was cut short by injury; he also missed most of the 1989 season because of injury): 449 receptions for 7093 yards and 38 TDs. That works out to an average yearly total of 90 receptions, 1,419 yards, a 15.8 ypc average, and 7.6 TDs per season. That's a significant difference, and it's not as if Irvin didn't play on a run-heavy team. Basically, at his peak, he was a better -- and definitely more feared -- player than Reed. His five-year average of 1,419 yps average in that span is over 50 yards higher than Reed ever achieved in one season in his entire 16-year career. Reed was a very, very good player with a couple of great seasons, but he wasn't elite. He did, however, play for a very long time and was productive from his rookie season onward. That early production pads the overall totals although he wasn't a great player in his first couple of seasons (there was simply no one else to throw to on the Bills). Thurman Thomas and Bruce Smith were elite. Reed was akin to Bennett, another excellent player who had a terrific career. I don't think he deserves to go into the HOF, but I will be happy if he does. What Reed did in the playoffs makes all the difference ( or should ) .... We shall see
dave mcbride Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 What Reed did in the playoffs makes all the difference ( or should ) .... We shall see Let's look at Irvin in the playoffs in that five year window. In 13 playoff games, the Cowboys went 11-2 and won 3 Super Bowls. Irvin's contributions in those games were in fact stellar. In those 13 games, he had 74 receptions for 1,158 yards and 8 TDs. That averages out to 15.6 yards per catch. Prorated to a 16 game season, that works out to 91 catches for 1,425 yards and 10 TDs per season. To reiterate, 1,425 yards is 57 yards more than Reed's best single season performance.
1B4IDie Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Only 2 teams a year get to the superbowl and only 1 of those teams wins the superbowl each year; to say that is the pass to the hall BS. That is making a case for OJ Anderson, Mark Rypien, Doug Williams as well...John Stallworth is in the HOF - he shouldn't be. Just saying basing it on SB wins or letting that be a large deciding factor is misguided. An HOF career is based on your entire career. History is littered with great players who never won the big one... Being objective, YAC he was the best ever - that stat measures the talent of a WR more than Receiving Yards IMO. A WR has to use their abilities to make football moves to avoid being tackled and extend the play. Getting a ton of receiving yards indicates that you you have a QB who can throw you the ball and you can catch. You can also fall down as soon as you catch it like Scott Chandler. No one is making a case for any Gints or Deadskins. What is the point of the HoF? In my opinion it should be the best players that won championships. Not any player that won a championship. Then a few exceptions for purely dominant players that did not win a championship. I would kick out about 60% of the current HoFers. i.e. Bruce Smith would be in, Thurman would be in the "Andre Reed Perennial finalist list" Jim Kelly would not be in, and Andre Reed would never be nominated. Just being good for a period of time is not HoF worthy. You need to win to get in AND be dominant.
dave mcbride Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 No one is making a case for any Gints or Deadskins. What is the point of the HoF? In my opinion it should be the best players that won championships. Not any player that won a championship. Then a few exceptions for purely dominant players that did not win a championship. I would kick out about 60% of the current HoFers. i.e. Bruce Smith would be in, Thurman would be in the "Andre Reed Perennial finalist list" Jim Kelly would not be in, and Andre Reed would never be nominated. Just being good for a period of time is not HoF worthy. You need to win to get in AND be dominant. It's a team game. 22 starters contributing and all. I gather Ernie Banks shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame? Players don't win championships. Good teams with strong and deep rosters do.
1B4IDie Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 It's a team game. 22 starters contributing and all. I gather Ernie Banks shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame? Players don't win championships. Good teams with strong and deep rosters do. No **** Sherlock.
Utah John Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) In the Bills glory days, John Madden was the most influential person regarding how players were regarded. He focused on NFC players, and in truth the NFC generally was better. AFC teams were noticed by most people only during the playoffs and the SB. Reed had great games in the playoffs and SB but so do a lot of people who don't have great corresponding careers to go along. My point is he was not noticed much by most people. The reason a lot of Bills are in the HOF, besides being worthy, is Larry Felser. Felser was very well respected within the community of sportswriters, and when he told them Billy Shaw was a great guard, they believed him. There's no one with Felser's credibility covering the Bills or advocating for the former players anymore. I think if Reed was going to make it, it would have been during the time when Felser was still active. Then I get thinking and wonder why Reed DIDN'T make it while Felser was active. Maybe Felser didn't think in his own personal opinion that Reed was really that special, and he the other writers picked that up. Or maybe it's not quite so bad, maybe Felser just thought a lot of other ex-Bills deserved it more than Reed, and he supported them instead. The point being, I don't think Reed will ever get in unless he gets an advocate or he does something else to get his name noticed. If after he retired, he'd taken communications classes and gotten on the air as a color announcer, that might have helped. It separated Dan Dierdorff from the pack of really good O-lineman and got him in. It hasn't worked for Steve Tasker which is a shame but that was Tasker's only shot. My personal opinion is that Reed deserves to get in. He was the second best receiver in the game for a few years, and since the number one guy was Jerry Rice, the best ever, you can't hold that against Reed. He finished #2 in receptions, for Pete's sake. He dominated games and was a consistent part of the juggernaut. I'm just afraid that while the Bills were doing their thing, not that many people were paying attention. My the way, the notion that a player must have been on a SB winning team to get in is silly. If Norwood made his kick, how would that make Reed a better player? Edited January 10, 2014 by Utah John
dave mcbride Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 No **** Sherlock. I don't think I understood your point then. Can you explain?
34-78-83 Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Let's look at Irvin in the playoffs in that five year window. In 13 playoff games, the Cowboys went 11-2 and won 3 Super Bowls. Irvin's contributions in those games were in fact stellar. In those 13 games, he had 74 receptions for 1,158 yards and 8 TDs. That averages out to 15.6 yards per catch. Prorated to a 16 game season, that works out to 91 catches for 1,425 yards and 10 TDs per season. To reiterate, 1,425 yards is 57 yards more than Reed's best single season performance. Not worried about Irvin ... Was talking about Reed's playoff performances as a whole. On top of all that, numbers should only be a part of it. To the Eye test of all who watched him , Reed (and Rice) basically invented the term Run after Catch. There was no Wr better over the middle as well, and possibly none better in cold weather.
NoSaint Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Not worried about Irvin ... Was talking about Reed's playoff performances as a whole. On top of all that, numbers should only be a part of it. To the Eye test of all who watched him , Reed (and Rice) basically invented the term Run after Catch. There was no Wr better over the middle as well, and possibly none better in cold weather. id imagine cowboys fans that watched irvin would say his eye test looked pretty good too, based on the numbers. I admittedly was young in my football watching life at that point, and try not to weigh in with real definitive opinions because i simply didnt watch as much around the league or watch with as much of an eye for skill - simply entertainment (plus 20 years passing makes it tough to simply weigh in on memory alone). Dave, ill say thanks for adding some meat to the discussion with research/numbers. it was an interesting piece of perspective.
1B4IDie Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) I don't think I understood your point then. Can you explain? Just being good for a period of time is not HoF worthy. You need to win (a Championship) AND be dominant to get in. The point of playing in the NFL is to win a SuperBowl. The Hall of Fame should be reserved for the most dominant players that had a truly exceptional career and won a championship. It is OK to add a few players that did not win championships. Bruce Smith's sack total out of 3-4 DE is unheard of, and eclipses Reggie White's dominance in a 4-3 where he was expected to rush the passer. That is truly exceptional and he did play in 4 Super Bowls. Andre Reed was an important player on 4 Super Bowl losing teams. If Andre Reed catches a Super Winning TD in XXV, he is already in as a first ballot Hall of Famer. It is real simple this is the Hall of Fame. It should be reserved for the players that completed the ultimate goal of winning a championship and had a dominant career. The Hall of Fame shouldn't be for people that were simply very good at playing football. Edited January 10, 2014 by Why So Serious?
BuffaloBill Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 This is Andre's year. GO BILLS!!! Let's hope so.
34-78-83 Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 id imagine cowboys fans that watched irvin would say his eye test looked pretty good too, based on the numbers. I admittedly was young in my football watching life at that point, and try not to weigh in with real definitive opinions because i simply didnt watch as much around the league or watch with as much of an eye for skill - simply entertainment (plus 20 years passing makes it tough to simply weigh in on memory alone). Dave, ill say thanks for adding some meat to the discussion with research/numbers. it was an interesting piece of perspective. Irvin is already in no? Not sure what the point is there. I'm not debating Irvin vs. Reed. Reed and Rice were the poster boys for RAC. Reed played in horrible weather more than any of his peers too. And numbers in different era's are harder to compare in football than they are in say baseball. I agree that it's nice/valuable of Dave to point out the numbers ...
B-Man Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Just being good for a period of time is not HoF worthy. You need to win (a Championship) AND be dominant to get in. By this reasoning, Chris Carter did not deserve to be elected in last year, nor many many others. I guess Tim Brown shouldn't get in also, along with Andre ? .
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Doesn't matter if he was convicted. Did Barry Bonds ever admit to using steroids, why isn't he in the HOF. This is a popularity contest, and people need to like him to vote for him. What happened is likely enough to turn some off, particually since it's his first year. Not voting for him in year #1 is kind of making a statement that your actions hurt you and this is my way of sticking it to you. Being convicted comes into play say if the league tried to suspend him when it happened, (don't recall what did happen on that end) or other similar things It's very dificult to take any kind of legal actions agaisnt someone without any convictions, but easy to say I'm not voting for you. But was Harrison ever convicted of anything? I couldn't believe when that happened. I would have put Peyton shooting someone before Harrison.
machine gun kelly Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 @ProFootballHOF #PFHOF14 finalists just announced live on @nflnetwork … See who’s made it one step closer to Canton. The sad thing is this is the last Bill that will probably get in for another decade. Most of the other superbowl studs are now in. The one I'd love to see is Bill Polian. He absolutely deserves it as far as GM's. We all know the work he did here and in Indianapolis, but he also started off Carolina very well in the mid 90's. He was the best thing that happened to this organization in the last 35 years. We never have those glory years without him.
EasternOHBillsFan Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 The point being, I don't think Reed will ever get in unless he gets an advocate or he does something else to get his name noticed. If after he retired, he'd taken communications classes and gotten on the air as a color announcer, that might have helped. It separated Dan Dierdorff from the pack of really good O-lineman and got him in. It hasn't worked for Steve Tasker which is a shame but that was Tasker's only shot. I don't agree with the first part... Art Monk had several years of waiting before he was chosen, along with Lynn Swann. The receiver position is one of the most competitive positions in the balloting, and you have to serve your time unless you are like Jerry Rice. Andre is just having to wait for his turn, and this year seems to be THE year- Harrison wasn't Jerry Rice, and Tim Brown has to wait longer.
purple haze Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) I think Andre leads Irvin in almost all receiving categories...the difference is the rings! Don’t forget, Irvin’s career ended prematurely due to that neck injury… No one is making a case for any Gints or Deadskins. What is the point of the HoF? In my opinion it should be the best players that won championships. Not any player that won a championship. Then a few exceptions for purely dominant players that did not win a championship. I would kick out about 60% of the current HoFers. i.e. Bruce Smith would be in, Thurman would be in the "Andre Reed Perennial finalist list" Jim Kelly would not be in, and Andre Reed would never be nominated. Just being good for a period of time is not HoF worthy. You need to win to get in AND be dominant. Win what? It’s a TEAM game. For instance, by your standard Barry Sanders shouldn’t be in either. Lions never won jack and only went to the playoffs a couple times w/Barry in the backfield. Edited January 10, 2014 by purple haze
DerekJ Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Let's look at Irvin in the playoffs in that five year window. In 13 playoff games, the Cowboys went 11-2 and won 3 Super Bowls. Irvin's contributions in those games were in fact stellar. In those 13 games, he had 74 receptions for 1,158 yards and 8 TDs. That averages out to 15.6 yards per catch. Prorated to a 16 game season, that works out to 91 catches for 1,425 yards and 10 TDs per season. To reiterate, 1,425 yards is 57 yards more than Reed's best single season performance. Who's side are you on anyway? J/K.....you make very valid arguments but what he meant to the team's success should be every bit an important consideration taken in conjunction with his numbers. Yeah, it's a little fuzzy but I think it gets him in the HOF.
Recommended Posts