I'm wondering which of the Guards make it. I'm sure at least one will make it this year.

Tags may deserve some kind of recognition for presiding over the league during a time of such growth and prosperity, but I've always hated the way the HoF lumps coaches and commissioners into the same category as players.

Tippett deserves it. And Stanley Morgan deserves to at least be on the ballot.

Darrell Green should get in.

Tagliabue shouldn't, not yet at least, but I guess he will.

Art Monk should be the first WR picked from the list above. I would be happy to see Ray Guy make it. I'm guessing that doesn't happen.

As for all the linemen and pass rushers, it's hard for me to differentiate. I have a soft spot for Tippett, who had the ill fortune to play through all of the Pats' bad years. And yeah, Derrick Thomas was phenomenal in his day.

Totally off topic, but I have no memory of:

Art Monk in a jets uniform;
Andre Reed as a redskin; and
Richard Dent as anything other than a Chicago Bear. He played for the Colts?!?! weird

PatsFan

Thank you. No one (other than Patriots fans) ever seems to have any love for Tippett. People always talk about Derrick Thomas, but Tippet was far more of a complete player, from what I recall...

What, no one's made the obligatory "All Chris Carter ever did was catch TD passes!" joke yet?

I can't pretend to know the first thing about OL play, so I'm going to have to rely on the FO brain trust on whose snub I should feel moral indignation over.

I agree with the Pats running hog wild if Tippet can't get hall love this year, it might not happen. Darrell Green to me jumps out as the "player" on the list. His return against the 86 Bears is just one of those plays that I can't forget.

Dent needs to get in. The '85 Bears defense is woefully under-represented considering it may have been the best of all time. Also, he was awesome, very few players in the modern era have put up those kind of sack totals coming from the DRE (specifically not DLE or ROLB) position. It is a very short list and the rest of the guys on it are in the Hall.

Fred Dean! Fred Dean! Fred Dean! Fred Dean! Fred Dean! Fred Dean! Fred Dean! Fred Dean! Fred Dean! Fred Dean! Fred Dean! Fred Dean! Fred Dean! Fred Dean!

Or the HOF should get its act together and put in the greatest modern era fullback, Tom Rathman.

Green is the only 'no-doubt' name on the list. If I had four others I would go with Dent, Carter, Zimmerman (if only to avoid Broncos fan whining) and Derrick Thomas (I didn't think he had played that long).

Sorry, no punters (Guy was great but he didn't help his team as much as these other players). Tippett was a good player but not HOF caliber.

I'm going to make my requisite advocacy post for Ray Guy. If you're the best there has ever been at your position, you should be in the Hall Of Fame.

@11: You wouldn't vote for robo-punter? Guy is as close as we've come to that.

With the CA primary happening the Tuesday after HOF voting if Ray Guy doesn't make it in again I'm writing him in as the Green Party nominee.

There is a 1960's, early 70's KC Chief that should be on this list...

I hope Tippet, Thomas and Green get in.
Damn "Hall of Offensive Fame" needs some defense.

I think Cris Carter is a lead pipe lock. The second most catches all time, plus all the great character stuff and turning his life/career around. Add in mentoring Randy Moss and he'll get thru in a walk.

Darrell Green gets in in a walk, same w Tags.

What's the max for enshrinement... after those guys all the OLinemen may get bottlenecked and split the vote.

You guys obviously never saw Goldberg play. Check out the old youtube videos on him--especially his 90 yd TD run vs NY Giants, truly amazing. ANd he put up monster numbers even while missing two years during WWII. A hall of famer and a hero!

If I remember correctly, there are seven max. I agree with Stu that Cris Carter, Darrell Green, & Tags are locks. One old-timer I've probably never heard of seems to always make it, so I guess Goldberg is in. There will be at least one OL and one DL; my guess is Dent (I agree that 85 Bears team is underrepresented) and Grimm (not that he's significantly better than the rest, but he's a respected coach who probably sees the sportswriter/voters more often). That leaves one slot for ??????????

#15: There is. Emmitt Thomas.
:)

I'm not so sure that Tags is a lock. He was a finalist last year and got passed over.

#19: The general feeling is that, of the two senior nominees, Emmitt Thomas has a much better shot than Goldberg does. I know most people on the PFRA board that it was a joke that Goldberg even got nominated instead of guys like L.C. Greenwood, Chuck Howley or Tommy Nobis.

Having said that, watch Goldberg be the one who makes it.

I shouldn't grumble since there are 3 players on this list who played the majority of their careers with the Redskins (Green, Grimm, and Monk) and one who will probably get in this year (Green), but it's a shame that Chris Hanburger can't even make the early cut.

There is such a backlog of guys who deserve induction (I hope Aaron was joking about Keuchenberg) that it is hard to view the process as anything more than a farce at this point.

Shouldn't Derrick Thomas be in the HOF by now? The guy was a holy terror, holds the most sacks in one game record at 7, and died prematurely cutting his career short by a few seasons. The NFL HOF has me bewildered. At least the Baseball HOF is more consistent. You never have any idea who will get in, and too many guys that don't really deserve it, like the Punter on the list. Really? A punter has a shot? It's the reason no one cares about Canton. Cooperstown is where its at.

#18: do you have a link to those videos?

I kind of like that the NFL HOF is so limited. I knew there was a max, but I kind of thought it was 5, since that seems like the biggest number of people I remember getting in at once. Look at it this way- 5 people get in a year, and the average HOFer's career lasts 10 years- that means theer are 50 future Hall of Famers playing today, or about two per team. And before expansion there were 3 per team. That sounds about right.

Anybody who can say with a straight face that they can be even in the area code of certainty that, say, Larry Little belongs in the HOF, but that Bob Keuchenberg does not, just doesn't know football generally, or line play especially. I can come up with a similar dichotomy between a player now out of the HOF, and nearly every non-ball carrying player now in. The process is a farce, primarily because they haven't been inducting enough guys, and very few of the selectors watch enough games. Paul Zimmerman is a real anomaly among that group.

To add on, as an example, from reading his column, it seems as if that prior to his NBC Sunday gig, Peter King watched about three games a week in detail, at best. There is no way on earth that King is qualified to tell us who really are the top-performing lineman in the league. It is impossible, and I doubt whether he can focus enough in a busy studio to tell us now. Evaluating individual football performance is hard, hard, hard, especially with the guys who don't catch, carry, or throw the ball. The odds that the HOF selectors are performing well in this task, years after guys have retired, are vanishingly small.

#29,

I agree Will, and also wonder who other than coaches would watch so much film, and not only that, who would have access to the coaches tapes which really show everything as opposed to what we see on TV

Marshall "Biggie" Goldberg was part of the '47 Cardinals team that won the NFL championship, the last Cardinals team to do so.
He's also in the National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame.

No point to that, I just thought it was interesting.

Doug, each team has a director of pro personnel scouting, or something similarly titled, and that person's job is to break down all other 31 teams' games in detail, in order to get a good idea of what the hierarchy of performance is among players, so trades, waiver pick ups, and free agent signings are made knowledgeably. Those are the guys who I would like to see polled secretly, as to who is really playing in a dominant fashion.

Not sure I'd call it a farce, Will, but just looking at this list makes me think, damn, the doorway in needs to be bigger. A lot of underrepresented OL and general D players--if they ONLY selected those guys for 10 years it might balance membership out, but would be insanely unfair to all the deserving O guys who come up for nomination during that time. They don't need to fear diluting the quality in Canton--making it 10 guys a year and making coaches/owners/GMs/commissioners separate would drastically increase the % of candiates admitted yet increase the hard numbers by only 3 a year. Especially since there are 32 teams now instead of, what was it, 26 in the early 70s? Anybody have a problem with that?

And on Ray Guy, I think the key may not be best ever, but that he (and his coaches) redefined the position to where it became a weapon, rather than just a roster spot. I say he belongs, but like relievers in baseball who are not out there nearly as often as position players, but can be just as key in wins--especially playoffs, is he MORE worthy than Kooch, Grimm, Zimm, Dent? Uh, hmm, mmmm...

My 6:
Richard Dent
Darrell Green
Randall McDaniel
Paul Tagliabue
Emmitt Thomas
Gary Zimmerman

Aside from Green and Tags, there's nobody on this list I feel really strongly about, and I'm certain enough about Tags getting in sooner or later it won't bother me if he doesn't get in this year.

The maximum is 7, but only 5 maximum can get in from the non-Senior's category. I'd choose:

Carter
Gradishar
Green
McDaniel
Monk

I think the two Senior candidates are bad choices that don't deserve election. Will explain why if asked.

Am including Gradishar because I think he belongs in and this is his last year of eligibility as a regular candidate.

Of the rest, I think Reed, D. Thomas, and Zimmerman are deserving but can afford to wait a while longer. Grimm, Guy, and Tippett would be respectable choices, but strike me as the next level down. Do not think Dean, Dent, Kuechenberg, or Tagliabue belong in and will elaborate on request.

I also do not get the whole argument that Ray Guy was the best punter ever. This gets vehemently said a lot over the web and would like to see a convincing stat-based justification for the idea instead of just accepting the notion as received wisdom or partisan boosterism.

It's also too bad folks like Dermontti Dawson and Cortez Kennedy didn't make it out of the Semis, or that Ken Anderson, Nick Lowery, Robert Brazile, and a host of WRs and DBs didn't make it out of Prelims. I think they all belong in.

#3: I don't see why Stanley Morgan is more deserving than Cliff Branch, Drew Pearson, Harold Jackson, or Harold Carmichael. The stats I've seen suggest otherwise.

#10: Maybe it's just me, but I always thought Jim Brown was the greatest modern-era fullback. And I'm wondering if Larry Centers and Mike Alstott might merit at least fleeting consideration for post '80s "best" versions of the position.

#23: Chris Hanburger is only eligible now as Senior. Good luck getting him up for consideration, though I agree he should be in along with Robert Brazile (only a year away from Senior status now), Maxie Baughan, and Chuck Howley, for three others. Maybe Tommy Nobis, Les Richter, and Joe Fortunato as well. Outside LB is perhaps the most under-represented non-special teams position in the HoF.

Aaron, do you really think Carter is a good candidate? I seem to remember a couple of year in review articles pointing out his crappy DPAR/DVOA numbers. I know it's not perfect but I think it's better than looking at his catch and touchdown numbers without context. If you have any confidence in your metrics, you shouldn't think Carter is even close.

Re #35
Well, since you offered...
1. Why do you believe Emmitt Thomas shouldn't get in?
2. Why no Richard Dent?
Despite my endorsement of them, I really don't have strong feelings one way or the other, especially on Thomas, so I'm quite amenable to persuasion.

Wasn't Ray Guy basically the Shane Lechler of his era? A booming leg who usually just kicked the ball into the middle of the endzone?

Carter is a lock, not just for the numbers, but he made these indelible catches that made you watch them on freeze from to marvel at how he caught this one-handed or managed to toe the line just so. Stuff like that matters for HOF committees. And they can back it up with numbers.

Re #38:

1. Richard Dent: has a very weak "1st-team-all-pro/pro-bowl profile" (1/4) in a 15 year career, which would be the lowest of any post-1950's D-lineman if he got in the HoF. Also had a reputation of not going all out all the time, which doesn't help his case. Has lots of sacks, but have seen thoughts that Dan Hampton was the force that made the Bears defense work by taking double- and triple-teams and collapsing the pocket while Dent ran around the side and snagged the flashy sack stats.

2. Emmitt Thomas: would really like to why Thomas was nominated ahead of other DBs who are equally or more deserving, including (deep breath) Cliff Harris, Johnny Robinson, Lemar Parrish, Bobby Dillon, Bob Boyd, Abe Woodson, Jack Butler, and Jim Patton. Sure, Thomas has lots of interceptions — but so do Robinson and Boyd. Thomas was a 1st team all pro twice, but except for Robinson, who spent almost all his career in the AFL, every one of these players made more such teams: Parrish and Butler 3, Boyd, Harris, and Woodson 4, Patton and Dillon 5. If you compare pro bowl appearances (or AFL equivalents), Thomas has 5 but so do Woodson and Patton, while Harris has 6, Robinson has 7, and Parrish 8. Dillon has 4. Butler also has 4 and Boyd only 2, but both are on their respective all-decade teams. In fact, Thomas's 2/5 profile would probably be the lowest of any post-50s DB in if he makes it. And lots of INTs can mean several things, from the good (like a good cover guy with a good nose for the ball) to the bad (like a guy who gets thrown on a lot because he’s the weakest DB or a gambling cover guy who gets lots of picks but also gets toasted for big gainers and TDs). What I’ve seen written about Thomas suggests he was likely the gambling coverage DB type.

bachslunch, if you can tell me you closely watched about 10-12 games per weekend back in the '70s, then I'd be interested in your elaboration as to why Kuechenberg doesn't belong. If you didn't, don't bother, because your guess isn't any better than mine.

re39
R Guy only person on list who belongs in h of Fame.
Guy great P. Best P of all time. Master of punt inside 20 yard line. Changed the game with his great punts. Once kicked ball and hit roof of Superdome.

Also, bachslunch, could you cite some specific games, and players, which included "triple teams"?

For me, the test I try to use in any sport is "When I saw this guy play, did I think he was a Hall of Famer?" (which is part of why I'm amazed that Andre Dawson hasn't made it in baseball, and has less support than Jim Rice).

On that note, I'm stil astounded that Monk isn't in. That argument gets beaten to death by both sides every year here, but I do recall him as being a generally accepted, no doubt, easy Hall of Famer toward the end of his career.

McDaniel, Carter, Green, Zimmerman, and Thomas also pass that test pretty easily for me.

Tippett, Dent, Reed, and Grimm don't, though I certainly remember all of them as being very, very good players.

I'm especially happy to see Tippett included in these conversations. He reminds me a lot of Tim Raines - an exhilirating player on overlooked teams who also had the misfortune of having the same position, skills & peak years as once-in-a-lifetime players who stole the national attention (Laurence Taylor and Rickey Henderson). It's hard, because if Tippett hadn't been playing at the same time as Taylor, I might have a different opinion. Or I might not.

Reed's another guy - who's to say what I'd think about him if he hadn't played at the same time as Rice? I find him to be maybe the toughest call - he was a huge part of an amazing offense, but I always thought of Kelly, Thomas, and the offensive line being the real keys there.

Speaking of which, Will Wolford is a Hall of Famer in my memory, with Kent Hull being very, very close and Howard Ballard also getting serious consideration. Not only were they all tremendous linemen, but I think it's been forgotten how much it took not only to be that good, but to be that good while running a hurry-up offense, often in an outdoor stadium in Buffalo.

For what it's worth, I'm not a Bills fan and didn't even like them very much during their Super Bowl years.

As for all of the players before Dent, I just didn't see them during their primes. Looking at the stats, though, Guy's always seemed like maybe the most over-rated player in football history.

Duh, it was too long ago. Jim Ritcher was better than Howard Ballard (which isn't to say Ballard sucked). But neither of them should get much Hall attention. But Wolford's still a huge oversight, in my opinion, and Hull was terrific.

Of course, now that I look at it, Wolford & Hull only made 3 Pro Bowls, Richter & Ballard 2. Not enough for the HOF voters (but damn, that was a good line).

Switching teams, what about Guy McIntyre?

I'll finish my triple post with this barely related piece I found on Glenn Parker's (no slouch, himself) wikipedia page, as it cracked me up:

"Before his professional football days, Parker was active in the Society for Creative Anachronism. He sat the throne of The Kingdom of Caid in 1985 under the persona name Glyn ap Rhodri. He was made an Earl and later a Knight in 1986. Popular rumor holds that a condition of his NFL contract forbade him from taking part in SCA combat while he was playing, due to a perceived risk of injury.

His SCA Heraldic device was registered in 1986 as: "Argent, 3 lions passant guardant Gules and on a bordure Sable 3 lozenges argent""

re: Aaron

"We need more linemen, although, as a Patriots fan, I would like to see Bob Kuechenberg left out."

Um... why? It's like me saying that, as a Dolphins fans, I'd like to see Tom Brady, or Bill Belichick , left out. As much as I hate them on the field, I must say they're worthy candidates (I know, understatement, but still).

I'm sorry, Aaron, but it seems like a petty comment to me.

Finally, Ken Anderson will get his due. Wait...he's not on the list AGAIN. #@$%&*@*$-#!!!!

My 2 cents:
Green
Dent
McDaniel
Carter
Zimmerman

> “We need more linemen, although, as a Patriots fan, I would like to see Bob Kuechenberg left out.”

> I’m sorry, Aaron, but it seems like a petty comment to me.

I was wondering the same thing, especially in light of the new "Rules for Comment Threads" pertaining to these claims of Patriots bias on this site. I even understand that the comment was tongue-in-cheek, but why set the standard for civility and then turn around and openly taunt fans of your rival?

My thoughts regarding Dent are cystallised down to my earlier point that very very few DREs have put together double digit sack seasons for year after year, or anyting lke his total for his career. DREs get blocked by the opponent's best pass blocker almost every game, if you look at most of the leading sackers over the last 25 years they are almost all LEs or ROLBs. Here is a quick list of players who were able to consistently (say 8 years or more) put up double digit sacks from DRE;

Bruce Smith
Richard Dent
Chris Doleman

That comes to three players, all of whom in my opinion deserve to be in the Hall. I fully expect Freeney to make this rather short list if he is able to fully recover from his injury.

I am aware that this isn't the most scientific study, such a study would take me too long right now.

Jimmy, I have now mostly decided to not make any strong assertions regarding someone's unworthiness for the HOF, for the reason's I've outlined above. I just can't get on board with Doleman, however, a guy who I did see play a lot; probably more than half the games he played. He just was never stout enough against the run, in my opinion, and obtained those sack stats in part by abandoning his run stopping duties.

Re-reading my post #52, 'cystallised' urgh, my thoughts on this subject can be reduced to small fatty deposits under the skin. Not what I meant to type obviously.

Will

Doleman still got to the QB many more times than loads of guys who did get to the Hall. Were the critiscisms of Doleman when he played under Dungy of the same sort as the critiscisms Freeney gets nowadays? If I recall correctly they play the same system.

My point was mainly an attempt to emphasise how difficult it is to get sustained high level production from the DRE position in the NFL. NFL LTs are just too good, any player who has been that succesfull (Dent, Doleman, maybe Freeney) deserves to be recognised as a special player.

this may be looking down the road, Will, but would you feel for example that Pat Williams has made an HOF-worthy career?

I think his impact is tremendous, I think he's worthy. But I don't think he has a prayer of even being on a finalist list.

RE 55: Pat Williams has been a dominant DT for nearly 10 years. There are only a handful of guys with his strength and size in the world. And I think he was a 6th rounder.

Should be a first-ballot HOFer. But won't be because media-types who vote look at undefinable and irrelevant things like "contribution to the game" instead of "unusually great at football."

I didn't see Williams enough until he came to the Vikings to have an opinion.

Doleman didn't start playing for Dungy until he was nearly 30. Freeney has gotten much better against the run. Doleman never did. My point is that a truly great defensive lineman cannot be that one- dimensional, even in a classic cover-2.

My list is:

Cris Carter - he had an enormous peak value, a long career, and wide recognition as being all-pro/pro-bowl talent. He is near the top of his position statistically.

Darrell Green - Such a long high-quality career.

Ray Guy - When he finished his career, he was hands-down the best punter ever. 7 pro bowls, 3 super bowl rings.

Randall McDaniel - He made 12 pro bowls in 15 years. Dang.

Derrick Thomas - Being a Raiders fan, I remember all to well how much he messed up my team. Although his career was short, he made the pro bowl 9 times in 11 years. Quality.

I don't think Carter or Monk should get in. The way I'm reading the tea leaves now, Dr. Z and King are relenting on Monk in order to justify Carter. If you look at some of their arguments against Monk, "no signature catches", "low YPC", those factors are worse for Carter who had no rings. Maybe they all just felt that Irvin had to go in before Monk or something... I don't like the politics involved at all... as some of the more vocal members act like Masters of the Universe.

PFR has All-Pro stats now, and accordingly, Carter was All-Pro only 4 times... whereas Monk was All-Pro 3 times. Regardless, I think I remember the study done in PFP 2007 showed that Carter-Monk have similar value, but most of the WRs were jumbled together. (I'll have to see that more)... and yes I know Carter blows everyone away on TDs.

I don't think Carter would fare very well per DVOA/DPAR except for 2 or 3 seasons where his catch #'s were phenomenal. Same thing with Monk. As a Redskin fan, I'd put Gary Clark in the hall over Monk.

Regardless, I don't see how the Hall can put in Monk or Carter, and not put in Tim Brown... heck Tim Brown was a 7 time All-Pro.

I have a bit of a problem with the voters putting Irvin in as well... only 3-time All-Pro. If no other WRs get in from the late 80s, 90s, I wouldn't be crying over it. Quite frankly the 3rd best WR of that era was probably Sterling Sharpe.... just like the best WR behind Largent from the 80s was Mike Quick.

In short, I guess that means I'm advocating Tim Brown for the Hall over Carter and Monk (too bad they can't rescind Irvin). As they erode the WR standards it's only going to piss off more fans because there are a ton of WRs who will have "numbers".

PFP2007 made a great case for a few of the older WRs.... I think it was Harold Jackson, but he'll probably never get in.

As much as I didn't like it because it kept Monk from the Hall, Dr. Z was spot on to point to Monk's YPC as a reason for keeping him out. Receivers need to put up goudy catches in a season to make up for what I'd call "lost yardage" (just study DVOA/DPAR a bit). So while Carter and Monk both had 3 or 4 Hall of Fame years due to high reception rate... that type of production was hard to keep up for the whole career (and Carter lost some of that due to his drinking problem). Year after year, I would point to Hines Ward and TJ Housh as the players with stats similar to Monk (high reception, low YPC)... and now that we are seeing Ward's stats sag a bit I'm starting to think it might be too hard to put up the high-catch low-yards seasons year after year (Welker is the guy who did it this year... other members of the club included Rod Smith).

Zimmerman, McDaniel, and Thomas should be a lock with their multiple All-Pro selections, but you never know. Carson was also a 7 time All-Pro selection and he never made it until he got a strong push from King. Aren't these the same people who vote on the All-Pro team?

I think some people wrongly discount touchdowns when evaluating receivers, including FO, although I think Aaron may have recently tweaked his formula, boosting their weight when measuring receiver performance. I can assure you, no offensive coordinator in the league discounts the value of a receiver who is so successful in the red zone, like Carter, when coverage is easiest to achieve. By the way, I'd also put Brown in.

Using Super Bowl rings, in the most team oriented of sports, to prove the worthiness of one player over another, is a pretty dubious thing for a selector to do, but unfortunately it happens all the time. Now, it is one thing to say that a Redskins era or 49ers era with multiple championships must have had more dominant players than what is currently reflected in the HOF, but it is quite another to say player x is more deserving than player y, because player x played on Super Bowl champions.

Fergasun, I agree with you about pretty much everything you wrote. As a Raiders fan, I will be mightily pissed off if Brown doesn't get in althoug Dr Z has said a few times he won't vote for him.
Agreed on Gary Clark. If Art Monk is extremely borderline and one of the arguments against him is "he wasn't the best receiver on his own team", well I'd take a look at that guy. I think Redskins fans waste too much time campaigning for Monk instead of Clark or Russ Grimm. I think Irvin has to be in though. Just opinion, but I always thought Aikman needed him more than vice versa. As for Carter, well Aaron has done a couple of year in review articles that mention his crappy DPAR and how much better Jake Reed's was. I'm guessing a lot of his yardage was pretty empty. By the way, what do you think about Henry Ellard? He seems like the real Hall of Fame WR snub to me.

The individual stats at this site only go back to 2000. Has Aaron posted previous years elsewhere? If the advanced metrics on individual players suggest to people such things like Jake Reed being more valuable than Cris Carter, that's a real problem with advanced metrics, or how people perceive those metrics.

I suspect that catch percentage was a factor here, and one of the reasons Jake Reed was better in this regard is because A) Reed never was schemed for in the manner Carter was, and it wasn't even close, and B)Reed did not get as many balls thrown in his direction, despite not being schemed for as much, because he was only mediocre at catching the ball, whereas Carter was thrown many difficult balls, because he had a much greater proclivity for catching them. I think catch percentage can obscure value as much as illuminate it, if people don't take the time to place it in context.

It was the same sort of superficial take on advanced metrics (in this case adjusted sack rate) which cause one outsider, I forget which, to state that the 2004 Vikings were a poor pass blocking team, despite Culpepper's 40-plus td passes. Anybody who had watched the games knew that the Vikings pass blocked superbly that year, and a huge chunk of the sacks came after Culpepper had held the ball for a week.

The more I try to form opinions about individual performance, the more I realize that there is no substitute for watching the games, and if you haven't seen most of a players games, you really have no basis to put forth an informed opinion. That's why I don't assert anymore that Monk shouldn't be inducted, and the only guys' opinions whom I pay close attention to on the subject are writers like Zimmerman who break down a ton of game tape (and how many do that?) or players or coaches who did the same over a long period of time.

The rest of us really don't know what we are talking about.

Cris Carter did more than catch TDs. He also had a freakish % of first downs. As a Packers fan, I remember almost every game hearing the announcers saying something like over 90% of Carter's catches were for first downs. He was a master at getting 8 yds when 7 was needed to move the chains. This was especially true when his counterpart was Jake Reed, the Darrell Jackson of his time. Carter was doubleteamed every game until Randy Moss showed up. I hated him at the time, but I always respected him.

Was Ray Guy really the best punter ever? I always thought Reggie Roby was better.

my opinion

Green of course (i think everyone agrees on him)

Carter (6 seasons in top 5 TD,including 3 season at 1, 6 years in top 5 recepts including 2 season in the top 2)(by comparison for the tim brown discussion, tim brown 2 top 5s in tds, 2 tops 5s in recepts and 4 top 5s in yards)

i like derrick thomas (9 pro bowls in 11 years, 3 times all nfl, led the 90s decade in sacks, and was a player that game plans had to focus on)

of the o-line candidates i like kuechenburg the best (as a jets fan it pains me to say that)

after those 4, i would really like to see randy gradishar get some support, he was awesome

and as far as the d-line candidates, i would take dean over dent. the chargers D was never the same after they got rid of dean and he was a key player for the niners, and he played before sacks were an official stat so it is hard to tell how many he would truly have had, as far as dent, nice pass rusher, but personally, i believe that hampton and mcmichael were clearly more important on the bears d-line than dent was

as far as tags, i dont think he should get in, i mean, did he really do anything another person who would have been commish during that time couldnt have done.

Will,
You cut-and-pasted that from the past 2 or 3 years. No one is discounting TDs, we are discounting the value of Cris Carter's career as a whole. I think it has been inflated by Chris Berman and Tom Jackson. I'm not going to say that Cris Carter wasn't very good, but I don't think he had a Hall of Fame career as a whole. He had 4 or 5 great years, but Hall of Fame players should have more than that. Jerry Rice has raised the bar for WRs. Nowadays many WRs have 4 or 5 years, but the great ones should have great careers that span 8, 9, 10 years.

The only lock should be Harrison, and even he's got Peyton throwing to him. Next might be Randy and Terrell but I don't know.

I disagree with the argument regarding WRs in PFP2007. Just because WR stats are going up, doesn't mean there are many dominant WRs in the league. I actually think maybe some more CBs could be enshrined? Eric Allen...? I know Deion will also be a lock...

Aaron posted a link to 1997 DVOA Ratings. 11/22/2006. You can use Google, I'm going to quote in italics the relevant parts.

Steve Smith led the league in both DVOA and DPAR, becoming the second wide receiver to accomplish that feat. The first? Jake Reed for the 1997 Vikings. 57 of his 68 catches earned a first down or a touchdown. Reed had a DVOA of 31.3%, while Cris Carter — who, let’s be honest, was probably attracting most of the double teams — ranked 50th in DVOA with -2.9%. And how did the Vikings react to this amazing season? They found themselves in position to draft Randy Moss, and they demoted Reed to third receiver.

50th in DVOA? That's not Hall of Fame. Also, from 1998.

top receiver of 1998 in DPAR was … Eric Moulds of Buffalo, with 40.7 DPAR. Terrell Owens, Rod Smith, Wayne Chrebet, and rookie Randy Moss rounded out the top five.

From 1996 DVOA and Ratings.
When I did commentary on 1997, I talked about the amazing season Jake Reed had in Minnesota, one of only two wide receivers to lead the NFL in both DVOA and DPAR (the other one was Steve Smith in 2005). His reward for this amazing season was to get bumped down to the slot when the Vikings drafted Randy Moss. Was 1997 just some sort of one-year fluke? Nope. Reed is third in DPAR for 1996, behind Rice and Alexander, and fourth in DVOA, behind Alexander, Henry Ellard, and obscure Tampa Bay slot receiver Robb "Screw Matchbox 20" Thomas. Cris Carter was 24th in DPAR and 48th in DVOA (out of 71 receivers with more than 50 passes), so that makes two straight years where Reed’s numbers blew Carter’s numbers out of the water.

I really don't mean to disparage Carter's numbers, just question why so many think he's a Hall of Fame lock. I'm sure Aaron was surprised too, but that seems to show the bias in favor of yards. Keep in mind that DPAR and DVOA do account for first downs! I think Monk would perform similarly using advanced statistics.

I think these are one of the reasons why I believe WRs with low YPC need to be really far and above in regards to number of catches.

Anyway, I think the numbers reveal some interesting things about players... I really don't buy that DVOA/DPAR is discounting something from Cris Carter... in fact the numbers show that it was Jake Reed with 80% of his catches for a first down.

And again Will, you say, "the numbers don't tell everything..." but they act as an equalizer.

Will, isn't the point of statistical analysis that some things you "just know" are in fact wrong. Take baseball for instance. Bill James used to write that the sac bunt was most of the time a counterproductive strategy. Baseball people used to say that "well, you can't measure it's effectiveness, you just see it". Eventually people realised that if you can't measure it's effectiveness, then maybe it isn't very effective. If advanced stats can't measure Cris Carter's effectiveness....And as for the whole "he was schemed for" defense, well that hasn't stopped plenty of other number 1 receivers from putting up good numbers.

Folks, if defensive coordinators consistently uses two guys to take care of one receiver, and one guy to take care of the other receiever, then the defensive coordinators are telling us that the first receiver is a much, much, much, more valuable player. Now, I suppose that the superficial reading of DVOA is correct, and every defensive coordinator in the league was wrong, but that isn't the way to bet. Statistical analysis in baseball, especially in the area of individual performance measurement, is child's play compared to football. Nobody has more respect for what Aaron has done here than I, and I put gigantic faith in his team efficiency metrics, and a lot of faith in his offensive, defensive, and special team metrics. The individual metrics, however, due to the gigantic degree of player interdependence, needs to be taken with many grains of salt, which is not a harsh criticism, but merely a recognition of how context is so important in regards to individual performance in football.

Does this prove Carter was a Hall of Famer? No, but when it gets to the point that people try to say that Jake Reed was a more valuable player than Cris Carter, people simply aren't using statistics in a useful way. Personally, I'd put him in on the touchdown figures nearly alone, again, because being able to dominate defensive backs in the red zone, when coverage is easiest to achieve, is an exceedingly valuable talent for a football team to have.

"Now I suppose it is possible that the superficial reading of DVOA is correct....", of course.

Sheesh, I need coffee with more caffeine.

Will,
I don't remember Carter seeing constant double-coverage... he's really not the burner type of WR. Much like Monk I remember him being a precise route runner, but also someone who made amazing sideline/back of the end zone catches.

I also think it is silly to point to Carter as the reason for Jake Reed's success. I know it is counter intuitive to see the #2 WR out-perform the #1 WR significantly... but that #2 WR is going out there week-after-week making catches.

Regardless, you're starting to win me over on the TD catches argument. But I still don't know... even looking at the peak performance article from PFP 2007, I think YPC is actually a significant stat (especially when we are talkikng about players who have decent catch%). Even though Carter (and Monk and maybe Brown?) show up on the peak receptions category, not showing up on the peak yardage category raises a flag to me.

I remember a stat somewhere that Carter had more 1 yard td catches than anyone in NFL history. Part of the reason for that was that the Vikings running game for much of his career was incapable of punching it in from one yard out any other way.

These one yard TD catches hurt his YPC stats, but were an important part of what he brought to the team. I'd wager most teams playing them knew he was their go to guy in these situations as well.

I definitely remember Carter sucking up coverage for the benefit of Reed, and later even Moss his rookie year.

I find it stunning that Cris Carter isn't rated more highly by FOs in-house stats. As a GB fan I was driven nuts for a decade, watching him make innumerable impressive and back-breaking catches. I don't know what to make of the disparity, but I'd put him in nevertheless.

I think Darrell Green should also be in if only for consistently adequate-to-good play for 20 years. It's also very hard, as in baseball, to play for so long without also having a very good peak.

Richard Dent should also be in. I don't know if he or Hampton was the better lineman, but it was one of the two. He was not just a pass-rusher.

I wonder about Guy. Over the course of his career, how many excess yards was he worth to his team? Alternately, how many in an average season? It may be that no punter is that valuable, and the best punter ever is simply not important enough to warrant HoF induction. Is 100-150 yards per season, 2-3 yards at a time, enough of an impact? Hmmm.

Jake Reed was a good player, but the fact remains that no defensive coordinator devoted as many resources to defensing Reed as they did Carter. Now, we are also limited in our ability to evaluate by the fact that hardly any of us see enough games live, or have coach's film, with which to truly see what is happening in detail. If I could propose a realistic change(in terms of getting the proposal through) in HOF voting, it would be to add another group of selectors to the process, comprised of now-retired guys, be they pro personnel scouts or coaches, who spent years breaking down coach's tape, and made a living trying to counteract the effect of dominant players. At that point, I'd have some confidence that something approaching a well-informed group was making these picks. Right now, my interest seems to be diminishing with each year, because the process is so random.

Does anybody else think Ray Guy could be the most overrated player in NFL history? I mean, really, if he played for a coach who didn't have a pulpit to speak of, he'd be remembered as a pretty good punter. Now because Madden says he was the best ever, it's become a fact.

By the way, Madden also lists Cliff Branch, Ken Stabler, and Ted Hendricks as among the best players ever at their position. (Not counting guys like Tatum and Shell, who you could make the argument for).

I think probably 75% of the punters in the NFL today are better than Ray Guy.

67/71 - As a Packers fan, I remember CC getting double coverage most every play in the early-mid 90's against my team. Maybe because the DVOA numbers only go back to 1996 and Carter had already been in the NFL 10 years by then, you're not aware of how good he was. But pulling out the DVOA of a WR at 32 (CC's age in 1997) and using that as basis for HoF inclusion ignores several years of his being one of the best of the best.

Ray Guy has got to get in. He was a great punter and great kicker as well. He's the best punter of all time and played on SuperBowl teams. He should be a lock. I think Monk and Carter are "bubble" guys, especially because thier stats are all going to be eclipsed by many, many people in the next 5-10 years.

that's a great list of players.

Only 5? Garsh. We need lineman!!

Green
McDaniel
Zimmerman
Monk
Tippett
--------
Grimm (next year)
Carter (next year)

I confess I do not remember much of Kuechenberg, but he's sure got the all pro/pro bowl thing.

re75
Guy also play for T Flores. No pulpit for Flores, so what you say now?

Guy greatest P of all time. sooner you relaize this sooner you are smarter.

justanothersteve (#76), I'm pulling out DPAR from 1996/97 because at the moment, that's all we have to judge him by. These were considered prime/ probowl years for Carter so it's not like I'm cherrypicking down years for the guy.

As for Carter/Reed, lets make a couple of comparisons. Lets take a couple of recent good passing offenses with an acclaimed great receiver and an acclaimed very good #2 guy. From 2005-2007 Chad Johnson has ranked 2nd, 5th and 6th in DPAR. TJ Housh has ranked 9th, 4th and 13th. So Johnson, the guy drawing all the attention, has beaten him twice and been in a virtual dead heat once. From 2003-2006 Marvin Harrison has twice been ranked ahead of Reggie Wayne and twice behind him, but it's always been pretty close with the possible exception of 2004 (Wayne 1st, Harrison 12th). So it's not unprecedented for a #2 guy to be higher ranked. But I can not find any other example of an alleged #2 guy putting up better numbers to the extent that Reed outstripped Carter. By the way, this is going on the assumption that what Aaron wrote in the 1996/97 reviews is still true and that he hasn't upgraded DPAR and drastically changed the Carter/Reed rankings.

But I can not find any other example of an alleged #2 guy putting up better numbers to the extent that Reed outstripped Carter.

He's not a HoFer, but Eric Moulds was repeatedly out-DPARed by #2 receivers for at least his last 6 seasons in Buffalo.

2000:
Moulds: 30.5 DPAR, 164 passes

Jeremy McDaniel: 24.2 DPAR, just 69 passes

McDaniel, 24, would play just one more season in the NFL before being released and relegated to Arena League obscurity.

2001:
Peerless Price: 9.8 DPAR, 111 passes
Moulds: -4.6, 135

2002:
Price: 24.1 DPAR, 148 passes
Josh Reed: 8.9, 59
Moulds: 8.5, 179

Moulds was named to the All-Pro team, while Price went to Atlanta as a free agent and hasn't had a good season since.

2003:
Bobby Shaw: 14.9 DPAR, 86 passes
Moulds: 2.4, 121

Shaw, 28, was released four games into the next season.

2004:
Lee Evans: 26.7 DPAR, 75 passes
Moulds: 11.1, 152

2005:
Josh Reed: 8.5 DPAR, 53 passes
Evans: 8.0, 92
Moulds: 7.1, 129

By the way, I was just reading the 1999 year in review piece and apparently Cris Carter ranked 2nd and 12th in 2000. Apparently he got a lot better (according to DPAR anyway) when Randy Moss became recognized as the best receiver on the Vikes (by the way, Moss ranked 4th and 2nd those 2 years).

I have a problem with kickers getting into the Hall as weather and domes affect their play more than any position. Ray Guy played in a mild weather town for most of career and a warm weather city for part of it. You think he would be on this list if he played in BUF or GB?

That would be a "No".

58: Do we seriously judge goddamn punters on number of Superbowl rings now? It's stupid even with quarterbacks, but with punters it's absurd.

No Dermonti Dawson? Again?

Boo.

I think the main reason Madden pimps for Ray Guy every year is because he is most responsible for Guy not being as statistically dominant as he might have been. Madden insisted that his punter kick it as high and as far as he could and let the special teamers sprint downfield to make the play. Considering how good the Raiders defense was, it probably didn't matter to Madden if they started at the twenty or not. But it resulted in Guy having a lot of touchbacks. He might be the most physically gifted kicker the league has ever seen, but he played in an era when his skills were not appreciated and for a coach that didn't see much difference in letting a team start at the 20 or pinning them back further. For what it's worth I think Guy would have been excellent at directional punting, its too bad he never really had the opportunity.

I never saw Guy play but it is ridiculous that no Punter is currently in the Hall of Fame (not counting old time players who played multiple positions). The HOF should recognize the greatest players at every. Keeping entire positions out of a HOF is an absolute joke.

Heck one can make a strong argument a player like a Brian Mitchell (and in the future Hester for example if things continue) should be in as Returners.

As for the list Derrick Thomas has to be included. He was 1 of the most dominant defensive players in the 90s

These are all interesting arguments.
The thing that makes inducting guys into the Hall of Fame such a difficult job is that this game is played in very diverse ways by different guys with different styles. Success in the playoffs is a big deal when it comes time to vote for Hall of Famers. If a guy has regular season stats which suggest he might be a HOFer, his performance in key games like these and in contributing to ultimate success or failure as a team stands out. This is why I was not against Irvin getting into the Hall (although I would've preferred he wait a little longer).
If you compare both personal playoff numbers and team playoff success, you find that Monk comes out on top in relation to Carter, Reed and Brown. The Redskins were 10-5 in the playoffs when Monk played. Carter's teams went 4-10 in the post season, while the Raiders and Bills were 6-6 and 10-9 respectively. Monk has 3 Super Bowl rings, while these other players combine for zero. These facts would be irrelevant if Carter, Reed and Brown had PERSONALLY bested Monk's individual playoff performance. But this is not the case. Monk's personal playoff stats in CPG (catches per game), YPG (yards per game), TDPG (touchdowns per game), and YPC (yards per catch) are overall better than those of Carter, Reed and Brown. Monk's playoff CPG, YPG and YPC are all better than any of these other guys. His TDPG in the post season is better than Brown, and only very slightly behind those of Carter and Reed. Brown only played in 1 Super Bowl and Carter never played in the big game, so if we want to take big-game comparisons to the next level, the only legitimate way to do it is by comparing each candidate's performances in NFC/AFC Championship games, since each guy played in at least 2 of these. When comparing CPG, YPG, TDPG, an YPC in conference championship games, Monk's stats outdo those of Carter, Reed and Brown in ALL 4 CATEGORIES.
Combine these fatcs with his team's greater post season success and you have a significant point to argue.
An article by Ned Macey of Football Outsiders pointed out that the way the game is played in relation to WR numbers has changed significantly. Just compare the number of QBs throwing for 4,000 yds in a season and the number of players with 100 catches in a season in the 13 years prior to Monk's career to the 13 years while he was in Washington and the 13 years after that and you will see the difference. Macey created adjusted stats for career catches, yards, and TDs based on this growth in the passing game. His final stats put Monk's career catches and yards ahead of both Carter and Reed. His catches stat was also better than Brown's in these adjusted numbers. Consider this legitimate adjustment when comparing Monk's playoff numbers to those of these other players. Monk had played in eight playoff games before any of these other three candidates had played in even one. He also played his final playoff game before the REAL explosion of passing numbers in the mid-90s. Keep in mind also that unlike these other candidates, Monk played for a team with a run-first mentality. With these facts in place, the gap between Monk's playoff numbers and those of these other candidates must be perceived as being even greater (I'd be interested to see how Mr. Macey's formula for adjusting numbers for era would come out for these playoff stats).
Oh, and Monk and the 'Skins were 2-0 against Carter and Reed's Vikings and Bills in the playoffs.

Actually, I'd be more than happy to know specifics, and the more the better, regarding how the film breakdown on Bob Kuechenberg makes him a no-brainer Hall of Famer (if that's what folks are saying here, and please correct me if I'm reading wrong). Maybe Kooch is one, and that's fine with me if so. With a 2/6 "1st team all pro/pro bowl" line (which is OK if not earth shattering), no all-decade team memberships, and 5 other more-or-less contemporary guards already in, it would be his strongest argument. Folks, I'm happy to be convinced -- it's just that accepting a non-specific argument based so heavily on film is so hard to quantify. Much obliged.

#59: Am fine with Harold Jackson getting in as well, but he'll probably get lost in the shuffle with Cliff Branch, Drew Pearson, Harold Carmichael, and Isaac Curtis. For 1st team all pro selections, I've been looking at Ralph Hickok's site, and see only two such selections for Derrick Thomas (though 9 pro bowls) and none for Harry Carson (also 9 pro bowls). I count 4 for Zimmerman and 7 for McDaniel at the same site.

#61: I can go with the idea that Henry Ellard's a reasonable HoF snub.

#87: You're really stumping for the best long-snapper for the HoF?