Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

BD Sullivan wrote: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.

Brown is not even in my top 50 running backs of all time for that reason.

L.C. Greenwood wrote: . . .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.

You have implied or maybe even simply stated that Ward was a pioneer. I don't share that viewpoint. He was a very good player. He was an asset to the Pittsburgh running attack. He also helped block defenders on pass receptions to other receivers. But for me to elevate Ward, in my book, from "very good" to "Hall of Fame", I need more than he blocked Reed and Woodson and some other guys here and there.

Jim Nantz or Greg Gumbel or Peter King or someone at ESPN saw Ward make a nice block one time and it was probably fancy-lookin' because the defender wasn't looking so he got popped pretty good and next thing you know, "Oh look at that! This Ward guy is great! That is amazing. I've never seen anything like it!" Or maybe Chris Berman saw it and made a few sounds on the PrimeTime program. Then this idea gets floated out there that Ward invented wide receiver blocking and then we have people say it should be the final push to get him into the Hall of Fame.

You'd have to prove to me that the Steelers gained X amount of additional yardage due to Ward blocks than they did when the ball carrier was running near Plaxico Burress or Cedrick Wilson or Bobby Shaw or Santonio Holmes. If able to do that, then I need to see how it compares to other receivers in the NFL. Then, I need to see if the additional yardage due to Ward blocks merits a bump to Ward's Hall of Fame candidacy. It would be a tall order.

Reaser wrote: ....stalk blocking....

I LOLed at this, Matt.
I guess I've thrown about a thousand of 'em but I never thought of it as that.
Nice terminology. Well said.

JWL wrote:

BD Sullivan wrote: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.

Brown is not even in my top 50 running backs of all time for that reason.

Naturally, Jim Brown would be on very, very few "top-pick a number" lists.
He would be the image at the top of the monument or trophy.
The list would contain the names of the runners-up.
(I don't remember seeing Stan or Ted or Joe bunt very often so we better take them off the list of great outfielders?)

JWL wrote:

L.C. Greenwood wrote: . . .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.

You have implied or maybe even simply stated that Ward was a pioneer. I don't share that viewpoint. He was a very good player. He was an asset to the Pittsburgh running attack. He also helped block defenders on pass receptions to other receivers. But for me to elevate Ward, in my book, from "very good" to "Hall of Fame", I need more than he blocked Reed and Woodson and some other guys here and there.

Jim Nantz or Greg Gumbel or Peter King or someone at ESPN saw Ward make a nice block one time and it was probably fancy-lookin' because the defender wasn't looking so he got popped pretty good and next thing you know, "Oh look at that! This Ward guy is great! That is amazing. I've never seen anything like it!" Or maybe Chris Berman saw it and made a few sounds on the PrimeTime program. Then this idea gets floated out there that Ward invented wide receiver blocking and then we have people say it should be the final push to get him into the Hall of Fame.

You'd have to prove to me that the Steelers gained X amount of additional yardage due to Ward blocks than they did when the ball carrier was running near Plaxico Burress or Cedrick Wilson or Bobby Shaw or Santonio Holmes. If able to do that, then I need to see how it compares to other receivers in the NFL. Then, I need to see if the additional yardage due to Ward blocks merits a bump to Ward's Hall of Fame candidacy. It would be a tall order.

Did we need to prove the Falcon's defense was gassed in the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl, and the Patriots confidence was growing as the game was changing? No, because we saw it for ourselves, the results were there, as Atlanta's rush wasn't as effective, and receivers were getting more open. Just because we can't quantify something doesn't mean it isn't obvious. I have no idea if it's possible to go back and log blocking stats from the 2000s. But what we do know is what we saw on the field, it was usually Ward on making those downfield blocks. We saw a key part of a two time SB champ helping a HOF RB, and a future HOF QB in both blocking and receiving. We saw knowledgeable former players and coaches praise Ward's excellence in this area, no one is suggesting Ward invented WR blocking, but it's hardly a coincidence this trait became more emphasized at the WR position during the 2000s. NFL Films is both knowledgeable and objective, and they've accurately described Ward's legacy.

I never said blocking was the only reason Ward will be inducted, but in the aggregate, he's done enough for the HOF. Very good receivers don't become the all time receiving leader of a storied franchise with other HOF receivers. Very good receivers don't star in the postseason against the elite competition and earn MVP honors in the most important game that season. And very good receivers don't catch more passes and TDs than all but a tiny number of receivers who have ever played in the NFL. Agree about Ward not having a large number of Pro Bowl selections, the lack of a franchise QB played a role.
He's just a blue-collar receiver who had a number of HOF-type attributes, and will eventually earn his way to Canton. Likely will take several years, but it will indeed happen.

L.C. Greenwood wrote:Did we need to prove the Falcon's defense was gassed in the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl, and the Patriots confidence was growing as the game was changing? No, because we saw it for ourselves, the results were there, as Atlanta's rush wasn't as effective, and receivers were getting more open. Just because we can't quantify something doesn't mean it isn't obvious. I have no idea if it's possible to go back and log blocking stats from the 2000s. But what we do know is what we saw on the field, it was usually Ward on making those downfield blocks. We saw a key part of a two time SB champ helping a HOF RB, and a future HOF QB in both blocking and receiving. We saw knowledgeable former players and coaches praise Ward's excellence in this area, no one is suggesting Ward invented WR blocking, but it's hardly a coincidence this trait became more emphasized at the WR position during the 2000s. NFL Films is both knowledgeable and objective, and they've accurately described Ward's legacy.

I never said blocking was the only reason Ward will be inducted, but in the aggregate, he's done enough for the HOF. Very good receivers don't become the all time receiving leader of a storied franchise with other HOF receivers. Very good receivers don't star in the postseason against the elite competition and earn MVP honors in the most important game that season. And very good receivers don't catch more passes and TDs than all but a tiny number of receivers who have ever played in the NFL. Agree about Ward not having a large number of Pro Bowl selections, the lack of a franchise QB played a role.
He's just a blue-collar receiver who had a number of HOF-type attributes, and will eventually earn his way to Canton. Likely will take several years, but it will indeed happen.

Oh, I'm sure he will be inducted. If he was great, he would be a no-brainer selection. Alas, being a very good player for a popular franchise will get him in anyway. For the record, I will not be up in arms when he gets elected.

I classify him as "very good" based on the quality of his performance, accomplishments (stats, honors, awards), and intangibles (leadership, sportsmanship, etc.). Ward caught the ball well. I don't recall shaky hands, I don't recall fumbling being a problem. He was good after the catch. Not great, but good. He played on a bunch of good teams and clearly contributed to that. He did block well. He was a quality teammate from what we know. He didn't give the middle finger to any fans like Michael Vick. He didn't pretend the football was a turd coming out of his butt like Doug Baldwin. He didn't punch a teammate in the face like Steve Smith. He didn't squirt an official with a water bottle like Randy Moss.

Ward did make some good blocks but, to me, it really cannot be determined exactly how helpful he was in this area. There is really just no way to do it. So what I do is say Ward was good at it and I stop there. I don't know that Ward was a better blocker than Keyshawn Johnson or Michael Clayton or Art Monk or Charley Taylor or Paul Warfield or Larry Fitzgerald.

The Hall of Fame is just that...a Hall of Fame. Not a Hall of Great football players, coaches and executives. Terrell Davis is absurd. Peak level dominance of just 3 seasons just doesn't cut it for me. He's a luckier William Andrews. And nobody is putting Andrews in the Hall. However Davis star shone bright on a big stage in a big football city, and he's a good enough guy whose career ended early so he goes in.

Klecko for some reason is blackballed. Most everybody who played against him says he was a Hall of Famer. He was outright dominant and dominant for long stretches. But he had some off the field issues.

Mawae who was a dominant center for many years. He deserved to go this year but will eventually get the hall.

Lynn Swann is in. With 336 career receptions and never sniffing 900 receiving yards in a season. But again...he is a staple in grainy NFL highlights packages with his acrobatics, he is a known name.

Harry Carson? No. But he did invent the Gatorade splash...and is another very well known face and name for decades in NFL circles. Still very active in the league and with the very influential Giants football family...so the strings were pulled to get him in.

Probably not Namath either but his celebrity was so enormous and the weight of that 1 Super Bowl is pretty heavy. Not sure how much of his sometimes wretched stats were due to him playing in severe pain or playing on awful teams and trying to do too much...or just being a risk taker with poor football judgement and instincts. There's gunslingers...but Namath was just of the charts when it comes to all or nothing.

sheajets wrote:The Hall of Fame is just that...a Hall of Fame. Not a Hall of Great football players, coaches and executives. Terrell Davis is absurd. Peak level dominance of just 3 seasons just doesn't cut it for me. He's a luckier William Andrews. And nobody is putting Andrews in the Hall. However Davis star shone bright on a big stage in a big football city, and he's a good enough guy whose career ended early so he goes in.

Klecko for some reason is blackballed. Most everybody who played against him says he was a Hall of Famer. He was outright dominant and dominant for long stretches. But he had some off the field issues.

Mawae who was a dominant center for many years. He deserved to go this year but will eventually get the hall.

Lynn Swann is in. With 336 career receptions and never sniffing 900 receiving yards in a season. But again...he is a staple in grainy NFL highlights packages with his acrobatics, he is a known name.

Harry Carson? No. But he did invent the Gatorade splash...and is another very well known face and name for decades in NFL circles. Still very active in the league and with the very influential Giants football family...so the strings were pulled to get him in.

Probably not Namath either but his celebrity was so enormous and the weight of that 1 Super Bowl is pretty heavy. Not sure how much of his sometimes wretched stats were due to him playing in severe pain or playing on awful teams and trying to do too much...or just being a risk taker with poor football judgement and instincts. There's gunslingers...but Namath was just of the charts when it comes to all or nothing.

Some thoughts:

Terrell Davis to me is borderline but I think his selection is potentially defensible, especially if you're a peak value voter. Being on an all decade team seems for better or worse to carry a chunk of weight with the voters, and he is on one. There's no question he got a boost because of extensive and top-notch postseason performance and a perception that his peak, while short, is unusually high. Not sure if I'd have voted for him or not.

Kevin Mawae's waiting is not unusual. But not to worry, he's rightly getting in sooner or later, perhaps as early as next year.

Joe Klecko's postseason honors are actually a little thin at 2/4/none. He likely gets a good boost from film study; reportedly Dr. Z was very supportive of his candidacy. He might get a Senior nomination at some point and probably gets elected if so. If there's a movement afoot to blackball Klecko from the HoF, it's news to me. Best I can see, he's pretty much caught in a clutch of DL like Mark Gastineau, Fred Smerlas, and L. C. Greenwood.

I feel Harry Carson (2/9/none) is a perfectly fine HoF choice, especially given how poorly MLBs/ILBs from the 80s and 90s are represented -- he and Mike Singletary are the only ones in. And the only others I can see with reasonable arguments not elected so far are Sam Mills and Karl Mecklenburg, and I'm hard pressed to see they're necessarily more deserving than Carson.

Not at all supportive of Lynn Swann in the HoF. His career is short and his stats aren't particularly distinguished. He did likely get a boost in for postseason play. But that's reflected in the fact that he didn't get in until his 14th try as finalist, more than anyone else.

Joe Namath is at least in part a narrative-heavy candidate. And while he only won one SB, it was arguably the most significant, one that tangibly established the AFL as being on par with the NFL. Kiran Rasaretnam's QB rankings don't think that highly of Namath, while Chase Stuart's like him a bit better. In some ways, he's a little like Kurt Warner, though Warner ranks better in era adjusted stats.

I'd also be interested in seeing the case for the HoF routinely voting in in famous people rather than conferring fame on those they elect. For one example, Mark Gastineau was about as famous as a DL can be during his career (that dopey sack dance he did, and being part of a d-line with a fancy nickname), yet he never even reached the finals much less the HoF. In fact, there are plenty of HoFers at non-skill positions who weren't fabulously famous at the time -- Kevin Mawae will certainly join them when he gets in. For this to be true, we'd need to see lots of PFHoFers whose arguments are narrative driven and low on substance; there are a few, like Swann, but not that many.

bachslunch wrote:Joe Klecko's postseason honors are actually a little thin at 2/4/none. He likely gets a good boost from film study; reportedly Dr. Z was very supportive of his candidacy. He might get a Senior nomination at some point and probably gets elected if so. If there's a movement afoot to blackball Klecko from the HoF, it's news to me. Best I can see, he's pretty much caught in a clutch of DL like Mark Gastineau, Fred Smerlas, and L. C. Greenwood.

Gastineau has some honors that could give him a serious look but being a flamboyant, jerky type player hurts him. We have seen how that same thing has hurt Terrell Owens. I would vote "no" to Gastineau.

Smerlas vs Klecko is probably pretty close. I've seen some say Smerlas was better and others who say Klecko was better.

Greenwood wore fancy cleats and played for the Steelers and was in some beer commercials. He also holds the Super Bowl record for most sacks in a game but the league won't recognize sacks prior to 1982, so, it, like doesn't count or something. Greenwood checks all the boxes for fame. I am led to believe the voters just haven't felt he was a good enough player.

JWL wrote:

BD Sullivan wrote: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.

Brown is not even in my top 50 running backs of all time for that reason.

This will be blasphemy to some, but Brown is a little overrated. He didn't really make his team better. Like most stud running backs, he had little championship success, which is ultimately the point of pro football: win games, make the playoffs, win a championship. He won, what, one title?

His one-trick pony game is similar to Adrian Peterson, another running back whose team won't go anywhere until they stop thinking of him as their bell cow.

One way to evaluate Brown is to ask this question: If he were a running back today, would Bill Belichick want him on his team? I say no. Not well rounded enough, and too expensive.