At this point, I almost want Monk to make it just so all the dang Redskin fans will shut the hell up. On the other hand, maybe it'll be nice to keep him out, just so they'll keep whining and moaning the rest of their lives. It is kind of amusing, if tiresome.

Anyway, we all know that once King changes his mind, Monk is a sure thing. Sure, he hasn't ever been all that close, but we all know it's just because King has been campaigning against him so hard, and all those other voters are just sheep who do whatever Peter tells them. That, or his vote counts for sixteen or something. Yeah, I'm sure that's it - get Peter King to change, and he's a sure thing to get inducted.

I love this comment:

"If Buffalo had given him [Thurman Thomas] a bit more attention in those four Super Bowls, they might have won one or two: 1990, 15 carries; 1991, 10 carries; 1992, 11 carries; 1993, 16 carries"

Well, in those last three SBs, Thomas gained 13, 19 and 37 yards respectively, so maybe that's why he didn't get more carries. It's not clear to me that giving a guy 25-30 carries when he's gaining 1-2 yards per carry is a winning formula, so a little harsh on Marv Levy IMO. Of course, in the first SB mentioned, Thomas's carries were limited by the fact that Buffalo had the ball for less than 20 minutes in that game. Had they had 25+ minutes of possession, I'm sure Thurman would have had more than 15 carries.

"Sounds like a start."

Sounds like pandering to a lynch mob. I'll believe King is going to change his mind when he actually does it.

2 things I think I think:

1. If Art Monk makes the hall, then McCardell has to get in, too. Long-lived #2 WRs of the world unite!

2. Art Monk ranked in the top 5 in receptions 3 times. He ranked in the top 5 of receptions twice. He never ranked in the top 5 in receiving TDs. That's a total of 5 top-5 rankings in 15 seasons, combined with 3 pro bowls. Here is a list of WRs who have similar accomplishments:
Danny Abramowicz
Terry Barr
Raymond Berry
Cliff Branch
Ken Burrough
Harold Carmichael
Wes Chandler
Gary Collins

That's up through the C's. This is what is known as "damning with faint praise". Do you honestly mean to tell me that if those guys had played for 15 seasons, they would be HoFers, too?

I think King deserves credit for talking and writing openly about his HOF votes and his reasons for them. It's refreshing to hear someone explain his rationale, even when you disagree. I don't see any reason not to believe him when he says he is going to think about Monk more since people he respects disagree with him.

RE 5

But it is so much fun!!!!! :-)

Kibbles,

That Berry fellow is in the Hall, and there is considerable support for Branch, and even Chandler, as well.

The reason Berry made it is the main reason Monk should make it -- when he retired, no one had caught more passes in the history of the NFL. This is not baseball, where that "compiler" crap might resonate -- longevity in the NFL, even for a wide receiver, is a notable feat. Unlike Branch, for example, Monk was not a fellow who hugged the sidelines or only ran deep outs -- he was a person who regularly went into traffic and across the field for his catches.

To combine that longevity with enough production to be the all-time leader in a major category is worthy of enshrinement. That's why Zimmerman and Karl Mecklenburg also deserve consideration -- by the standards for those positions, they produced at a high level for an unusual length of time in a very debilitating league.

Peter King votes for the hall of fame?

2. That is one of those chicken or the egg debates. Generally speaking the team with more rushing yards wins. But do they win because they are rushing more, or are they rushing more because they are ahead and want to grind the clock. I think that in Buffalo's case, it is more of the latter.

Barry Bonds issues affect his play ON the field.
Moron.

Only explosive, game changers should be in the hall of fame. The baseball hall of fame does it wrong, it looks at numbers and not performance. Monk will stay out of the hall of fame as will Jimmy Smith.

#8:

Full list of selectors here.

http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/selectionprocess.html

#11
sarcasm...I just can't stand how king constantly name drops and attempts to insert himself in the story. I read mmqb for tidbits on the league that are increasingly hard to find in recent articles. Instead of informing us about the NFL, King has devolved into informing us about his relation to the league and its players. He's become a pretty poor columnist and an even worse journalist.

RE 12

When was he ever any good?

I mean if I have to live through another "colon" inspection article I think I will just puke.

Sorry to all of you out there that read that article and are now having a hard time with trying to swallow you dinner

RE: #4

And Lynn Swann had 3 top 5 finishes in those 3 categories in 9 years. What's the point?

Re: #2 -

Not to mention the fact that in SB#4, he almost single-handedly gave the Cowboys the game in the first half. If he'd hung on to the ball, and not forced the defense to bail the team out multiple times, things might have been a bit different. Bad thing to highlight, Peter. Although #1 (1991 against the Giants), he's the MVP if Norwood's kick goes through. (180 yds of total offense is pretty good in 25 minutes...)

Re #1
I wondered the same about the Boston Red Sox winning the World Series in 2004. Seeming answer: no, it really doesn't stop the whining. Some teams' fans just like to whine a lot, it seems, and if it's not X, then it's Y.

Why, oh why, do people look at Pro-freaking-Bowls to determine the greatness of a player? Since it's inception, 'name' guys will get in and leave more deserving players out. Stats mean nothing if you take them out of context - the philosophy you're playing in affects them greatly. And only "explosive" players should be in the Hall? Then I guess we should leave all linemen out - stupid, useless guys with no game-changing ability!

Whew... now I can breathe...

Lynn Swann shouldn't have made the Hall of Fame, but anybody wearing black and gold in the 70's got in. That doesn't mean we have to let in other fairly decent receivers just to be fair.

#9: I don't see how it's a chicken or egg thing at all. The original point that I responded to was that Thomas's low carries in the SB were a sign of Marv Levy's poor coaching.

I don't see how it's a sign of bad coaching for a guy to say let's throw the ball more or hand off to somebody else when the primary RB has 13 yards on 10 carries.

It's a general line of reasoning that I've never agreed with. You'll often hear something along the lines of (hypothetically): the Steelers are 9-0 in their last nine games when Jerome Bettis had 20+ carries, so why don't they just give him the ball more? Of course the reason is that in the games where he didn't get 20 carries he was being stuffed, so giving him 20+ carries wouldn't have helped the team win (any more than giving Ladainian Tomlinson 20+ carries against Philly, when he went for 7 yards on 17 carries, would have helped his team win)

Whether or not Monk gets in is debatable. But what is a joke is people who think its a travesty that he's not in. He's not a slam dunk by any means, yet on NFL live they get up there and say time and again that voters who vote against Art Mnok should be banned from the committee as a disgrace to the game.

I can't remember one year when Art Monk was the most feared receiver on his teams. It was always someone else, Charlie Brown early on and later Gary Clark that I was usually more concerned with.

Here's a break down of Monk and the Redskins leading receiver each year if not Monk:

Year Monk's catches-yards-tds who else
1980 58-797-14 lead team
1981 56-894-16 Joe Washington 70-558-8
1982 35-447-1 Charlie Brown 32-690-8
1983 47-748-5 Charlie Brown 78-1225-8
1984 106-1372-7 lead team
1985 91-1228-2 (Clark 5tds, Didier 4)
1986 73-1068-4 Gary Clark 74-1265-7
1987 38-483-6 Gary Clark 56-1066-7 (Bryant had 43 catches)
1988 72-946-5 Ricky Sanders 73-1148-12
1989 86-1186-8 Gary Clark 79-1229-9
1990 68-770-5 Gary Clark 75-112-8
1991 71-1049-8 Gary Clark 70-1340-10
1992 46-644-3 Gary Clark 64-912-5 (Ricky Sanders 51-707-3)
1993 41-398-2 Ricky Sanders 58-638-4

(after this one year w/ Jets, one with Philly, didn't lead either team in receiving)

So that's two years in his career where he was clearly the Redskins leading receiver, two more where he was in some categories. Meanwhile Gary Clark lead the team in six years. In some it was neck and neck (for ones each lead in). My point is that how can you argue he belongs in the hall if youc an't say he was the best receiver on his team in that era? (yes I know Stallworh/Swann).

Art Monk finished with 940-12721-68

Gary Clark finished with 699 -10856-65

But their average seasons were:

Monk: 59-795-4
Clark: 64-987-6

I do not contend Gary Clark belongs in the Hall... but I contend he is more deserving than Art Monk.

I should edit the above to include "except for 1984".

Pro Football Hall of Fame Board of Selectors:

New England: Ron Borges, Boston Globe

*shudder*

I had never looked at the list of selectors before:

Arizona Kent Somers, Arizona Republic
Atlanta Furman Bisher, The Atlanta Journal
Baltimore Scott Garceau, WMAR-TV
Buffalo Mark Gaughan, Buffalo News
Carolina Charles Chandler, Charlotte Observer
Chicago Don Pierson, Chicago Tribune*
Cincinnati Chick Ludwig, Dayton Daily News
Cleveland Tony Grossi, Cleveland Plain Dealer
Dallas Rick Gosselin, Dallas Morning News*
Denver Jeff Legwold, Rocky Mountain News
Detroit Jerry Green, The Detroit News*
Green Bay Cliff Christl, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Houston John McClain, Houston Chronicle*
Indianapolis Mike Chappell, Indianapolis Star
Jacksonville Sam Kouvaris, WJXT-TV
Kansas City Bob Gretz, KCFX Overland Park, KS
Miami Edwin Pope, Miami Herald*
Minnesota Sid Hartman, The Minneapolis Star-Tribune
New England Ron Borges, Boston Globe
New Orleans Pete Finney, Times-Picayune
New York (Giants) Vinny DiTrani, Bergen Record
New York (Jets) Paul Zimmerman, Sports Illustrated
Oakland Frank Cooney, The Sports Xchange
Philadelphia Paul Domowitch, Philadelphia Daily News
Pittsburgh Ed Bouchette, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
St. Louis Bernie Miklasz, St. Louis Post-Dispatch
San Diego Jerry Magee, San Diego Union Tribune*
San Francisco Ira Miller, San Francisco Chronicle*
Seattle John Clayton, ESPN/ESPN Magazine
Tampa Bay Ira Kaufman, Tampa Tribune
Tennessee David Climer, The Tennessean
Washington Len Shapiro, Washington Post*
PFWA David Elfin, Washington Times
At Large Jarrett Bell, USA Today
At Large Dave Goldberg, Associated Press*
At Large Peter King, Sports Illustrated
At Large Bob Oates, Los Angeles Times
At Large Len Pasquarelli, ESPN.com
At Large Mike Wilbon, Washington Post

Lynn Swann shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame anyway, but even still he was a better WR than Monk. Swann was at least a Super Bowl MVP and occasionally a game breaker, Monk was just a pretty good durable posession reciever.

Art Monk was very good posession receiver and were he to get into the HOF I probably wouldn't argue it as his numbers add up. But in the words of a local columnist here in the SF Bay Area, the HOF in any sport should be for guys who changed the way you felt when you watched them play.

I'm a Cowboy fan and through all of those rivalry games I couldn't muster any hate for Art Monk. He didn't scare me. I never got angry when he caught passes. Riggins, Clark, Charlie Brown, Joe Washington, etc..,those guys pissed me off. That stupid smurfs celebration pissed me off. Monk was a contributor on some great teams but as posts #4 and #20 he was arguably the second best receiver on his team.

Now you anti Cowboy folks can hate The Playmaker all you want, but you know how he made you feel when you watched him play.

Wait, Steve Tasker merits consideration for the Hall of Fame?

I'm not one to downplay the importance of special teams, but even if Tasker was the greatest gunner of all time, how on earth does that make him more valuable than an average back-up running back or 4th wide receiver in terms of impact on a game?

Art Monk's credentials are debatable, but is there any way in the world he was a less valuable or worse player than Steve Tasker? Hell, Kenneth Davis was more valuable to those Bills teams! If you went back in time ten or fiteen years and told someone from Buffalo that Tasker was up for the Hall of Fame, but that Cornelius Bennett, Andre Reed, James Lofton, Darryl Talley, Henry Jones, Nate Odomes, Shane Conlan, Howard Ballard, Jim Ritcher, and Will Wolford were only getting marginal attention if they got it at all, they would've looked at you like you were crazy.

And though I'm not necessarily saying that any of those guys should get in (though I think Bennett merits a lot more consideration than he's been given, and think Reed and Lofton are marginal canidates with potentially strong arguments), that person looking at you like you were crazy would have been right.

And damn, didn't those Bills teams have some great linebackers?

re: Reno

I agree with you on Tasker.

Also, Lofton is in the HOF.

Sergio,
Pro-Bowls count because, at least until recently, it was almost purely recognition by one's peers. That carries a lot of weight in almost any field, be it peer-reviewed scientific papers published in obscure journals, or athletics. The guys who are in the same boat decides who gets to steer it. The gate-keepers don't want to let pretenders in.

You bring up a good problem, of course, in that reputations often carry more weight than they should (Jonathan Ogden, I am looking your way....). How many WRs in the league (assume 4 per team) pay attention to who all the best guards are? They know a handful of guys, may ask their DLs who are the best, but their picks are much more valid when it comes to their WR peers and DB opponents. Otherwise, it's like voting for incumbents: "He's still there, okay, I'll vote for him."

And now, of course, with fan voting counting 1/3, it's nearly as silly as the baseball all star game. But way back when, it was pretty significant. In fact, I can imagine some old school type tough guys thinking "I won't vote him to his fifth straight pro bowl unless this guy REALLY deserves it" and after they get knocked on their ass a few times by player X they say "Sonofagun, he really deserves it."

Sergio,
One more thing (to beat a dead horse) about Pro Bowls. If you look back on a career of say 12 years, and only twice did a player's peers league wide think he was among the best 3 in the league at his position (top 3%), how can electors decide that he is now among the top 3% of all time?

The counterpoint here is that he may have been playing in the shadow of greats who happened to play the same position in the same time, but that's not a common occurrence.

Just my gut feeling here, but if somebody made 9 PBs in 12 years and another guy made 2, and they both came up for voting this year, I'd look long and hard and try to figure out why. It would affect my peception. I could look at all the numbers, the support he had on his team, the stats and old film, but if the guys who played with and against him didn't think him worthy... how can I? I'd have to have an ego that allows me to say I know more about football, about the league when he was playing, and a whole lot of things more than the guys who actually played it with him at the same time. (What this leaves out is the fact that a PB player might get into the PB with 40 votes and the runner up got 39, but is denied year after year--without the Supreme Court to put him in there. Well now, them's some pretty close numbers--if I had THAT data, it'd affect my perception too.)

I think the case for Monk isn't as obvious as a lot his boosters say its, but it's not obvious that he shouldn't be in, either. His career totals, IMO, are one the weak side, and I believe Irvin should be in over him. OTOH, he held the record for receptions in a single season and the record for career receptions at various points in his career. Those are some pretty big positives.

20.
You could put up stats of Reggie Wayne and Marvin Harrison over the last few years, and you might be surprised at who looks like number 1 receiver on that team, but you have to remember, who is always getting double covered, or at least the best cover man all the time.

If Monk gets in, make way for Wayne Chrebet!

re: 32

And if Chrebet gets in, let's put in Tom Waddle!

So will the same thing happen to Issac Bruce? He's not done yet, but his best years are clearly behind him. Right now he's at 813 - 12,278 - 77.

He has 4 Pro Bowl appearances, seven 1,000 yard seasons, has recorded a 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th place finish in receiving yards for the league (including one year close to 1800 I think), is in the top 15 all time in receptions and yards. Oh, and he won a Super Bowl while having a huge game (that seems to matter).

However, for the last 6 years, he hasn't even been the best receiver on his team. Holt has been.

I'm not making a case for Bruce, I'm just wondering if his candidacy is similar to Monks.

#19 et.al. - the whole question of "do teams win because they run or run because they're winning" is basically what started FO in the first place.

Last year, when this sort of discussion was being held yet again, I noted that the Steelers were undefeated when Verron Haynes had more than 5 carries, so one could infer that Haynes is the key to the Steelers offense and should get the ball more. This, of course, is an absurd conclusion.

Re: #32

Monk 940 - 12,721 - 68
Chrebet 580 - 7,365 - 41

Let's not lose our heads.

Re #4 and #7: I think those totals understate Berry's top 5 finishes. If you're using pro-football-reference to count top 5 stats, it only goes back to 1960. Berry's '57-'59 numbers would net him 4 more 1st place (not just top 5, but 1st place) finishes.

Also, Berry's best season was possibly 1960 when he led the league in receptions, rec yds, and was 3rd in TDs (pro-rated to a 16 game season his stats read 99/1730/13) and set a record for 6 consecutive 100 yds games (there have since been two players post 7 consecutive but 3rd all-time isn't bad) but wasn't in the Pro Bowl (per p-f-r) that year for some reason. Berry’s HoF entry credits him w/6 pro bowls to p-f-r’s 5.

Also, Berry holds the record for most catches in an NFL championship game (12) in the “Greatest Game Ever Played� (12/178/1) – the Super Bowl record is 11.

I don’t know whether Monk should be in or out of the HoF, but he is in no way comparable to Ray Berry who is arguably the third greatest wr of all time (after Hutson and Rice there are probably some other candidates for #3).

#34: I think Isaac Bruce is a perfect example of how difficult it has become in recent times to make sense of a WR's numbers. In 1995, Bruce had 119 catches for 1781 yards (which would have been a record in any other year) and 13 TDs. Yet, he did NOT make the Pro Bowl that year! (Irvin, Rice, Herman Moore and Cris Carter did) How do we evaluate receiving numbers post-1990 when a guy can put up numbers which would have been an NFL record in any previous year yet still doesn't even make the Pro Bowl in that year?

I wouldn't necessarily use Pro Bowls as a HOF criterion for all players (at some positions, especially defense, reputation plays way too big of a role), but the Pro Bowl selections for WR seem to be pretty fair.

Using 1995, since you mentioned it: 1995 was a ridiculous year, with the top 5 NFC WR all having 110+ receptions. In any other conference in any other year, Bruce would have been selected.

Moore, Rice, and Carter had more catches than Bruce; Rice had more yards; and Moore, Carter, and Rice had more TDs. The only player to whom Bruce had better numbers was Irvin, and Irvin played on a team that rarely passed the ball (NFL rank in pass attempts: 28). Also, Isaac Bruce put up HUGE numbers in Weeks 15-17 (9-136, 9-68, 15-210), presumably after the voting finished, while Irvin did not (3-40, 5-90, 5-82).

#37:

That's my point -- Any list that equates Ray Berry with Danny Abramowicz is hardly a useful judging tool. There's something wrong in a statistical model that says they are roughly the same.

But if Kibbles is going to damn Monk by saying he's the same as Abramowicz, he needs to be called on his tool saying the same thing about Berry. It's obviously defective.

re: 37

Berry was voted first team All-NFL in 1960 by all four news services/publications that put out All-Pro teams that year.

He played in 5 Pro Bowls. Those were played in 1959, 1960, 1962, 1964, and 1965. I don't know why he didn't make the 1961 Pro Bowl (1960 season).

#38 - the way to evaluate receivers (or anybody) post 1995 is to look at how much they contributed in individual seasons. I think Kibbles has the right idea in terms of "top 5 finishes" in given categories. You clearly just can't take the straight up numbers when offense fluctuates so much from year to year. A player with great numbers is much harder to come by in 1992 than in 1984 or especially 1995. So either an ordinal rank, % of the top player of % over average needs to be used.

With all those players catching 100+ in 1995, it's clear that 100 is too low of a benchmark for that year, but fine benchmark for other years. Incidentally, I don't think Bruce has much of a chance for HOF.

Re: 33

Tom Waddle should be in. If getting concussed for a first down seems reasonable to a WR, he belongs in Canton.

So is a 'Top 5' performance more valuable now when there are 32 teams in the league than it was in, say 1974, when there were just 26 teams?

As a Ram fan, I would also consider Bruce as a long shot. He is, however, not done yet.

Re: 41

Ray Berry was initially named to the 1960 Pro Bowl team, but was replaced due to injury.

From the January 4, 1961 New York Times:

Gail Cogdill, the rookie of the year in the National Football League, today was added to the West squad for the Pro Bowl game on Jan. 15. He replaces Ray Berry of Baltimore, who is injured.

Yes, a top 5 performance probably is better with more teams than with fewer teams. The best way would probably be % over average, but nobody lists that making it hard to come by in evaluations. An easier way it to do what Thorn, Palmer, and Caroll did in the Hidden Game which is to make the top player in any given year the value 100 and then measure other players in given years as a % the top player at that position.

Of course, you'd still haave subjective cutoffs, and a few bad seasons at the end of a career would drage down your career totals, but it seems better than just ranking people by their counting stats across eras.

There are only 17 Modern Day (Post-WWII) WR in the HOF. That's an average of one HOF WR career beginning every 3.5 years. 2 of those 17 played for the 1970's Steelers.

(During the same time, 23 QB's have been enshrined and 24 RB's.)

I whipped up a quick ranking of all time WR's, comparing their Rec, Yards, TD stats and adjusting for era.

Lynn Swann is by far the least deserving HOF WR. He ranks 78th all-time on my list. 3 other HOFers rank near him, but their careers began prior to my cutoff of 1950. (Lavelli, Fears, Pihos)

Here's my all-time top 50 WR list:
1 JerryRice 11.55
2 GeneWashington 8.11
3 SteveLargent 7.94 HOF
4 HaroldJackson 7.54
5 CharleyTaylor 7.46 HOF
6 FredBiletnikoff 7.42 HOF
7 DonMaynard 7.40 HOF
8 CharlieJoiner 7.33 HOF
9 CrisCarter 7.33
10 HaroldCarmichael 7.27
11 RaymondBerry 6.97 HOF
12 BillyHowton 6.88
13 TimBrown 6.75
14 JamesLofton 6.69 HOF
15 PaulWarfield 6.67 HOF
16 LanceAlworth 6.61 HOF
17 CliffBranch 6.34
18 ArtMonk 6.23
19 AndreReed 6.22
20 MarvinHarrison 6.20
21 TommyMcDonald 6.17 HOF
22 ElroyHirsch 6.12 HOF
23 IrvingFryar 5.78
24 BillyWilson 5.71
25 NatMoore 5.67
26 HavenMoses 5.65
27 StanleyMorgan 5.65
28 GaryGarrison 5.58
29 JohnStallworth 5.58 HOF
30 ArtPowell 5.55
31 HenryEllard 5.52
32 RoyJefferson 5.45
33 BobHayes 5.43
34 BobbyMitchell 5.37 HOF
35 OtisTaylor 5.35
36 TerrellOwens 5.33
37 DrewPearson 5.33
38 JohnGilliam 5.28
39 KenBurrough 5.25
40 IsaacCurtis 5.18
41 MarkClayton 5.17
42 JimmyOrr 5.15
43 WesChandler 5.14
44 AndreRison 5.12
45 IsaacBruce 5.10
46 WesleyWalker 5.09
47 ReggieRucker 5.06
48 CarrollDale 5.02
49 RandyMoss 5.02
50 JimmySmith 5.01

Only 24 RBs? I thought they had already enshrined Reggie Bush, with a big '5' on his uniform.

Re: 49

Gene Washington is the #2 receiver of all time? Did you accidentally combine the stats of the 2 Gene Washingtons that played in the late 1960's/early 1970's?

Did Art Monk change the game? His 1984 season was obviously a decade ahead of time, a harbinger of the move-the-chains passing offense. Just because 100 receptions became commonplace after he retired doesn't mean he shouldn't get credit for doing it.

Did contemporaries think he was a Hall of Famer? Listen to the announcers in the last few years of his career. His election was a foregone conclusion.

Finally, let's remember that Monk didn't exactly have Joe Montana, John Unitas, Troy Aikman throwing to him. And yet, through his career the Redskins had the second best offense in the league (to the 49ers) and the second most successful team in the league (see 49ers) with three Super Bowl wins, another conference title, a conference title game beyond that, and a record for points in a season that stood for 15 years, all in the league's toughest division at the time.

re 49: could you elaborate on the numbers a bit please. How does Rice get an 11.55 for example? What does that mean?

"Listen to the announcers in the last few years of his career. His election was a foregone conclusion."

I've got to back this up. I started watching football in 1989, and it is undoubtedly true that Monk was considered a future HOFer by most commentators. I guess that's a reason why I've always been so surprised that he hasn't gotten in (not that commentators always know what they're talking about, of course.)

BTW, Zimmerman's comment on Monk, in his column on SI today, is "You DON'T get into the Hall of Fame catching 800 eight-yard hooks." I think this is an incredibly ignorant comment. I think catching tons of 8-yard hooks is extremely useful, unspectacular though it may be.

haha! Oops. I did combine the two Genes. That drops the better Gene down to #23 on the list after Irving Fryar.

Seeing as how Jerry Rice is a lock HOFer, that sure makes Harold Jackson an outlier. Interesting that he is never mentioned for the HOF. I suppose playing for so many different teams really hurt him. In 1973, Jackson had 40 receptions for 874 yards and 13 TD at a time when the team average for all WR's on a team was 66-1068-8.

There were 17 WR who had seasons that would be considered better than the average NFL team for that given year:
ElroyHirsch 1951 ram
TomFears 1950 ram
HughTaylor 1950 was
BillyHowton 1952 gnb
DanEdwards 1950 nyy
BillyHowton 1956 gnb
CliffBranch 1974 rai
ElroyHirsch 1950 ram
HarlonHill 1956 chi
HaroldCarmichael 1973 phi
DickGordon 1970 chi
HughTaylor 1952 was
WesChandler 1982 sdg
HaroldJackson 1973 ram
LionelTaylor 1960 den
RaymondBerry 1959 clt
BillGroman 1960 oti

I went to www.pro-football-reference.com and downloaded the seasons database. I used seasons from 1950-2005. I think his stats are complete back to 1950.

I then added up the total number of Rec, Yards and TD's for all WR by year. Then I divided by the number of teams in the league at that time. This gave me an average team total for the WR position.

I took each player's season total for each of those stats, and divided by the league average for the year. So, any category that a player had a score higher than 1.00 is a category that he was better than the average NFL TEAM for that season. I added the 3 stat categories together for each season and divided by 3. Elroy Hirsch's 1951 was the highest rated season at 1.71. Elroy 66-1495-17 in a season when the average NFL team (WR's only) averaged 52-845-8. So, essentially his 1951 season was 71% better than the average TEAM that year. I then summed these yearly totals for each player's career. This way, a player gets credit for longevity, but Ricky Proehl only scored a 0.01 in 1995, so the bad year doesn't really help his career rating much.

Jerry Rice played 21 seasons and scored 11.55. That means, on average, he was worth 55% (11.55 divided by 21) of the average NFL team over the course of his entire career.

re: 54 Especially when 50% of them were on 3rd and 1-7.
I've said I don't think Monk belongs in, but Irvin doesn't either, because I like the high standard of the Football HOF. I also remember him being a foregone conlcusion near the end of his career.

Maybe a DVOA style analysis of Monk's success rate is on order.

Repeating what I've said on other Art Monk threads:

I’ve got to back this up. I started watching football in 1989, and it is undoubtedly true that Monk was considered a future HOFer by most commentators. I guess that’s a reason why I’ve always been so surprised that he hasn’t gotten in (not that commentators always know what they’re talking about, of course.)

FWIW, John Thorn's Football Abstract (published after the 1988 season) assessed the HOF chances of active players who had been in the league for 6+ years. Monk is not listed among the "Sure Shots" (all 10 of whom have made the HOF) or with the "Probables" (6 of 11 have made the HOF), but with the "Deserves Consideration" group (only Elway and Gibbs of the 52 eligible have made the HOF).

Finally, let’s remember that Monk didn’t exactly have Joe Montana, John Unitas, Troy Aikman throwing to him.

Monk’s QBs were, on the whole, pretty good. Maybe they didn’t have HoF careers, but they put up some seasons that were comparable (Theismann in 1983 and Rypien in 1991 being the most outstanding examples). Heck, Jay Schroeder threw for 4,000 yards in 1986.

Maybe a DVOA style analysis of Monk’s success rate is on order.

Good luck finding the data.

re 58: fair enough. But Monk's subsequent seasons (especially 1989-1991, when he added 3000 yards worth of receiving to his career total, and a Superbowl win (in which he caught 4 balls for 70+ yards in the first quarter!)) were pretty good. If the author had been writing 10 years later he might have had Monk in a higher category (just like I'm sure he would have had Elway in a higher category based on 1989-1998)

It's hard to consider any of the Redskins of the 1980s for enshrinement, though many probably deserve recognition. Gibbs seemed to have a knack for turning over his roster and remaining successful. I would like to see more of their o-linemen get in before Monk. I'm not sure Irvin's numbers are good enough to overcome his bad reputation. Voters are instructed to ignore off the field issuses, but it is clear that in this case they have not. Irvin probably hurts his cause further by his horrendous work on ESPN as a commentator. As time goes by his numbers will look smaller and smaller and people will forget how great those Cowboy teams were.

By just '84 and '85, I think Monk was a hall of famer. The problem isn't he didn't repeat that two year performance anywhere else. An excellent '88 combined with 2 years on the top of the game as a WR in the recent past probably had a lot of people saying he was a hall of famer. Unfortunately, the years '90 to '95 were a little weak. And he was also bit slow on the early side of his career only getting HOF #s for a single season by his 5th year. We can't discount his 5th and 6th years, but that's not all there is to his career.

I will also note that Sterling Sharpe broke Monk's single season record for receptions in 1992 (a year with very low offensive output) and then broke his own record again in 1993 and won't be on anybody's HOF list, although at the time he would likely have been on "probable" lists.

Michael Irvin = Lynn Swann

I remember in the early 1990s there was a legitimate debate as to who was the best RB in football: Thurman Thomas, Barry Sanders, or Emmitt Smith. And most people picked Thomas because of his recieving ability and blocking. I cannot believe he was passed over last year.

Michael Irvin = Lynn Swan + drug habit + penchant for getting into trouble + horrible broadcaster

2. Thurman Thomas averaged nine yards per carry in the 1990 Super Bowl. If the Bills would have kept giving him the ball, they would have crushed the Giants.

re 58: fair enough. But Monk’s subsequent seasons (especially 1989-1991, when he added 3000 yards worth of receiving to his career total, and a Superbowl win (in which he caught 4 balls for 70+ yards in the first quarter!)) were pretty good. If the author had been writing 10 years later he might have had Monk in a higher category (just like I’m sure he would have had Elway in a higher category based on 1989-1998)

Might have, but not necessarily. Thorn's criteria weighs peak numbers much more than career total; indeed, over-longevity seems to be a slight negative.

Why do you pick out Monk's 1st quarter numbers from Super Bowl XXVI? They were good, but the most remembered Monk play from that quarter was probably his TD reversed when the replay official ruled he didn't have both feet in bounds.

Super Bowl performances (passes = intended receiver):

Swann:
IX: 1 rush, -7 yards; 3 punt returns for 39 yards
X: 7 passes, 4-161, 4 first downs, 1 td
XIII: 12 passes, 7-124, 6 first downs, 1 td
XIV: 6 passes, 5-79, 3 first downs, 1 td

Monk:
XVII: injured, DNP
XVIII: 10 passes, 1-26, 1 first down, 1 intercepted
XXIII: 1 pass, 1-40, 1 first down
XXVI: 10 passes, 7-113, 5 first downs

Irvin:
XXVII: 8 passes, 6-114, 6 first downs, 2 td
XXVIII: 8 passes, 5-66, 4 first downs, 1 intercepted
XXX: 10 passes, 5-75, 4 first downs

I wonder if there is any way to calculate and kind of legitimate career WR rankings and not end up with Jerry Rice as #1.

Typos suck. Let me try that part again:

"....calculate and any kind of legitimate...."

Richie - I doubt anybody other than Rice ends up as the #1 WR. Don Hutson, maybe, but he played prior to your study.

Daniel - Don't neglect Swann's horrible run as broadcaster, or at least sideline reporter. Can anybody actually understand what he says?

re: 55

I don't understand why Jackson doesn't get serious consideration.

He had 579 career receptions for 10,372 yards and 76 touchdowns.

He was 32 years old when he joined New England and then put up these yards per catch averages: 20.1, 22.5, 21.1, and 17.2. Not too many 35-year olds catch 39 passes for a 17.2 average.

In 1973 when he was first team All-Pro with 40 receptions, the Rams ran the 659 times and only threw it 271 times.

I'm think Dr. Z has Jackson listed on his all-1970s team in "The Football Book" as one of the six wide receivers (not sure if he had him as a 2nd-team or 3rd-team wideout).

"indeed, over-longevity seems to be a slight negative."

See, to me this is insane. I guess we all have our own preferences when it comes to HOF qualities, and I really value longevity (as long as the guy is a solid starter and not hanging around on the practice squad for years of course).

Hypothetically, if a guy was the 5th best WR in his conference for 20 straight years, I'd very likely be in favor of induction to the HOF even though he never got voted to a Pro Bowl. But I guess most voters are more impressed by shorter careers which have higher high points.

Re: 72

It's not my opinion, it's the electors'. As Thorn wrote:

High numbers help, but not as much as you might think....The selectors recognize that anyone who sticks around long enough today will get large totals. Efficiency seems to be more important than quantity.

Playing fifteen or even twenty years will not get anyone into the Hall. In fact, sticking around too long as an ordinary player may cause selectors to forget a guy's early years when he was exceptional.

One example:
http://www.profootballreference.com/players/AndeOt00.htm

Another:
http://www.profootballreference.com/players/CunnRa00.htm

Some comments...

re: post #20
I posted the EXACT same thing a couple years ago...to the word. Strange.

Harold Jackson - I've been a Jackson backer, and I think in his case the perception of his ability does not equate with his production. He was an extrememly productive WR (especially considering his era), but the knock on Jackson is that he was a one-trick pony. He was fast, and could catch deep balls, but that was about the extent of his worth. That said, I personally wouldn't mine a WR who 'only catches deep balls' to the tune of 50-1000-10 every year.

Re: post #49

A lot of people come up with their own stat-based 'greatest' lists, and none are ever all that good, but I really don't understand how Nat Moore and Haven Moses can be among the top 25 or so WRs of all-time. And what is this site's love affair with Reggie Rucker? It seems like he always makes the top WR lists.

This is subjectively speaking (I know, frowned upon here), but the main difference between Lynn Swann and Michael Irvin is that Swann was for a time considered the premier WR in football (probably from 1975-1979). You can say Irvin was never considered the best WR of his era because of Rice, but IMO guys like Sharpe and Carter were also better than Irvin.

To put it another way, if you were a GM and had to choose one of them to be on your team, I highly doubt anyone with sense would pick Irvin over Swann.

" if you were a GM and had to choose one of them to be on your team, I highly doubt anyone with sense would pick Irvin over Swann."

I never saw Swann play (aside from the highlight films) so I have one question: how good a possession receiver was he?

I think this is a big argument in Irvin's favor for the HOF. Not only was he a tough, dependable short-yardage guy on 3rd and 6, but he still had the speed to make big plays deep (15.9 career yds/catch) Subjectively speaking, again, I think it's rare for a WR to shine as a possession guy and a big play guy.

A final thought in comparing Irvin to Swann: Swann played opposite a fellow HOFer in John Stallworth to draw coverage. Irvin played with Kelvin Martin, Alvin Harper, Kevin Williams and maybe a few other guys I can't remember (oh yeah, Deion Sanders occasionally) Not quite as scarey as having another HOFer on the other side of the field, and not nearly as likely to draw coverage away from Irvin.

re: #75

Swann was a great possession WR. He was fearless over the middle and similar to Irvin he knew how to use his body to shield defenders from the ball.

I agree that Irvin was a good possession/big play combo. And it is interesting that both Swann's team and Irvin's team affected their stats. Swann played in a ball-control offense and shared catches with Stallworth, but as you pointed out Stallworth drew coverage away from Swann at times. Irvin didn't have a great opposite WR (although he did have Novacek at TE), and IMO his very low TD totals were affected by the Cowboys usually using Emmitt near the goal-line instead of passing.

I guess my point was that Swann was the best WR of his era, whereas Irvin was probably the 4th or 5th best of his era. JMO.

Re: 49, et al

Factors which bias your list against modern players:

1. The statistics on http://www.profootballreference.com for individual players are spotty the further back in time you go. For an extreme example, see this team, which doesn't appear to have had any wide receivers:

http://www.profootballreference.com/teams/crd1950.htm

From the site itself:

I believe my database contains complete career data for every QB, RB, WR, and TE who

* was active in 1960 or later;
* has ever had a season of 100 yards rushing, receiving, or passing or has ever scored or thrown for a touchdown.

EXCEPTION: players who both were drafted in 1978 or 1979 and finished their careers in 1978 or 1979 may not be listed.

2. I'm not sure, but I think you lump AFL and NFL players into one average. The AFL, especially between 1960-1965, was a very different league from the NFL.

3. Except for TD, the standards for post-1980 players are impossible. Team WR averages (according to profootballreference) by significant period (strike seasons excluded):

Year.......Rec....Yds....TD
1950-59....64....1039....8
1960-69....98....1602....12
1970-77....79....1297....9
1978-81....108...1774....11
1983-86....130...2057....13
1988-93....154...2229....13
1994-99....170...2370....14
2000-05....171...2329....14

Re: 74

There are ways to prove that Swann (or any other player) was subjectively considered the premier WR in football for a time. Did he make the Pro Bowl? Was he named All-NFL? Was he on the All-Decade team? Are there contemporaneous, reasonably unbiased articles which suggest that he was the best WR in the NFL?

Swann was the best receiver of his era? Really? Most acrobatic, maybe. Extremely clutch. What makes Swann a HOFer was his amazing postseason play but I'd like to understand the rationale that makes him better than Irvin.

#58: Rypien and Schroeder and Williams and Theisman in his last year were all decent quarterbacks. Having three excellent receivers and a good to great O-Line allowed them to put up good numbers. And that is my point--players like Monk made the system go.

As for Dr. Z's 800 buttonhooks comment, it would seem if the opposition knows what you are going to do and cannot stop it, and it brings your team offensive success, that it is worth something. How many three yard runs did Riggins have?

The real problem is that without DVOA we don't really know how good Monk was because he played with other excellent receivers, and Gibbs, sharp guy that he was, exploited matchups and spread the ball around. If Steve Largent played for the Skins, would his numbers have been better than Monk's?

Rypien and Schroeder and Williams and Theisman in his last year were all decent quarterbacks. Having three excellent receivers and a good to great O-Line allowed them to put up good numbers. And that is my point–players like Monk made the system go.

Monk was, at the very least, a very good player. But even if everything in that paragraph is true, how does that make Monk a Hall of Famer? What distinguishes Monk from Gary Clark besides playing longer under Gibbs?

The real problem is that without DVOA we don’t really know how good Monk was because he played with other excellent receivers, and Gibbs, sharp guy that he was, exploited matchups and spread the ball around.

Unless the data somehow becomes available, I wouldn't count on having DVOA for players of the past. We have to use other, lesser but still valid, tools for evaluating those players.

We do, however, have play-by-play for every Super Bowl (see my post #67). Monk's stats are none-too-impressive. I doubt any great WR ever had a Super Bowl as poor as Monk's in XVIII.

re: #77 & 78

HA! Last I checked, Swann WAS enshrined in the HOF. I think that should count for something.

In particular to #77, I hope you realize that pro bowls for skill position players are greatly tied to their stats. And for #77 and #78, I just gave my opinion that Swann was the best WR from 1975-1979. Its my subjective opinion. If you have a diff't WR in mind from that period, I'd like to hear.

" I have the rankings from the NFL's top scouting service. It is the most used and top ranked service.

It's rankings for WRs include skills, not numbers. A WR could have a perfect score on a play where the pass was thown to another WR.

They look at routes, catching ability, separation, all those things.

Here are Swann's 1974 not ranked, but #1 PR in NFL; 1975 #1 in NFL, 1976: #5 NFL, 1977: #1 NFL, 1978: #1 NFL, 1979 #2 NFL, 1980 #4 NFL, 1981 24th, 1982 39th.

Six of his 9 years he is in top 5 and 3 time he was #1. Remember, scouts look at ability, who is the best player, not the statistical leader. (Pearson was #1 in 1974 and high in all those other years)

So, that is one services opinion. There are, I am sure, others. "

Even if Aaron et al keep backtracking DVOA, they aren't likely to get data prior to 1996, which I believe is the first year nfl.com existed, and I don't even know if they have play-by-play logs that go back that far. Even then, a WR can't truly be separated from his QB, and DVOA & DPAR will often have quality/quantity disagreements.

I know a lot of people that really did think Irvin was the 2nd best receiver in the game after Rice at the time. Granted, I had a few Cowboys fans friends. As for the other receivers listed in #74, I think Cris Carter probably is a HOFer, and that Sharpe would have been had his career not been cut short by his neck injury. Still, I think until Moon joined up with Carter, and Favre really hit his stride (both in '94), that Irvin was considered better than both Carter and Sharpe.

One other comment on this thread - I actually value high peaks over longevity. A HOFer should have had a great impact on the game, IMO, not just a good player for a long time. I think Sterling Sharpe and Terrell Davis, therefore, should be considered ahead of somebody like Vinny Testaverde. Granted, none of them is likely to make it, but I wanted to put that out on principle.

Re #81 - I don't think you can use somebody's inclusion in the HOF as an argument to whether or not they deserve HOF. Swann also took 14 times as a finalist before induction. Monk is up to 6 after last year. I think there's a good reason people still debate Swann's selection.

Re: 81

I never said that Swann wasn't the best receiver in the NFL at some point. I merely suggested ways one could try to prove it without resorting to statistics. Your post #81 is a good example of that.

A lot of people come up with their own stat-based ‘greatest’ lists, and none are ever all that good, but I really don’t understand how Nat Moore and Haven Moses can be among the top 25 or so WRs of all-time. And what is this site’s love affair with Reggie Rucker? It seems like he always makes the top WR lists.

I think it has a lot to do with the short careers and short peaks of NFL players. So any stat-based list of greatest players is going to have a few guys on it who rank highly despit seeming to be nothing special.

Reggie Rucker is a guy who was pretty average, but had 10 pretty average seasons (and 4 poor seasons at the beginning of his career). Rucker and Swann are two good receives to compare, since they played during the same era (Rucker played 5 more seasons than Swann did).

From 1975-1979:
Lynn Swann 229-3774-37
Reggie Rucker 231-3653-27

So, if Lynn Swann was the best WR from 1975-1979, Reggie Rucker was right there with him. Rucker had 10 fewer TD's during that period. But, he was playing for a mediocre-bad Cleveland team while Swann was on a team with 39 HOF players.

I have no love for Reggie Rucker, I just thought I'd look him up and see why he ended up on my list.

So, if Lynn Swann was the best WR from 1975-1979, Reggie Rucker was right there with him. Rucker had 10 fewer TD’s during that period. But, he was playing for a mediocre-bad Cleveland team while Swann was on a team with 39 HOF players.

Cleveland's rank in pass attempts during those years: 5, 12, 8, 10, 4

Pittsburgh's: 24, 28, 16, 22, 9

Travis -

1. The statistics on http://www.profootballreference.com for individual players are spotty the further back in time you go. For an extreme example, see this team, which doesn’t appear to have had any wide receivers:

Yeah, I wasn't sure how accurate the 1950-1959 numbers were, but I threw them in anyway.

2. I’m not sure, but I think you lump AFL and NFL players into one average. The AFL, especially between 1960-1965, was a very different league from the NFL.

I did. I will re-run the numbers and seperate the AFL and NFL averages.

3. Except for TD, the standards for post-1980 players are impossible. Team WR averages (according to profootballreference) by significant period (strike seasons excluded):

Yeah, I think teams just throw the ball more now, and probably throw to more WR on each team, which will make it harder for individual WR's to rank higher on the list.

I just wanted to throw something together real quick. I'm open to ideas for improvement with the list. I counted catches, yards and TD's all equal. Personally, I think yards should probably be worth more than the other 2. I love making lists like this. I love the opportunity to look closer at Reggie rucker's career.

As to the Haven Moses comments above, he also ranks highly because he played for so long. There just aren't a lot of players who have 10+ year NFL careers. Those that do are going to climb these lists, unless peak value can be weighted more.

#86 - That's part of what makes the total #s of especially WRs difficult to to use at face value. Both Swann and Irvin were thought to be excellent receivers at the time they played. And both played in offenses that passed less than some other teams at the time. At least for QBs, we have rate stats. We don't have the # of intended passes for WRs.

re: #83 = Huh?

Re: #84 = yeah, I knew what you were saying. I just thought it was ironic that this site questions the opinion that Swann was the best WR 1975-79, but stat stuff like Nat Moore being the 25 best WR ever slips by unnoticed.

re: #85 = I admit that your stat system is interesting, and it is also logical to some extent. But you lose credibility when you say "if Swann was the best, then Rucker was right there with him". That totally misses the boat. And if your stat system is governed by longevity, then why not just look at career stats?

Paul Warfield was another receiver who didn't catch a ton of balls because he played on teams with vaunted rushing attacks (Cleveland and Miami). He's arguably a top five WR.
For me, he's right up there with Rice, Berry, Alworth, and Hutson.

Re: 89

Got it. I think if posters were to object to every single questionable name in that list, this thread would become unmanageable. Best to attack the methodology.

Any chance you have the scouting service rankings for Art Monk?

#89 re: #83. This whole discussion is about whether certain players belong / don't belong in the HOF. I don't think the statement "Swann is in the HOF. That has to count for something" belongs in an argument about whether or not Swann belongs in the HOF.

And I don't think a player that takes 14 tries to make the HOF was likely considered the best WR of his era. In fact, his teammate, John Stallworth, is the first one that comes to mind as somebody better than Swann.

One of my knowledgable sources tells me that Art Monk eats babies. Did you know that he never went on record saying that he doesn't eat babies? Maybe he was too busy... eating babies.

Senser,

And if your stat system is governed by longevity, then why not just look at career stats?

Remember, it's just something I threw together between TPS reports at work. But, my intent was a quick and dirty way to seperate career stats of players who played in different eras, by comparing a receiver to the passing environment he played in.

re: #92

I wasn't discussing whether or not Swann deserved the HOF. Even you admit that later on in your post...that I was referring to Swann being regarded as the best in his era...so I am still unclear what the heck you are talking about.

As for Swann's 'delayed' entry into the HOF as being a point AGAINST him in regards to being the best WR from 1975-1979, that is not a well-thought out comment on your part. Other good WRs from that era like Branch, Bob Chandler, and Rashad haven't really come close to the HOF, and IMO the 2nd best WR from that era is still waiting for the HOF (Drew Pearson).

Similarly, Bennie Friedman was probably the best player in the entire NFL regardless of position in the late-20's and early-30's, and he's just recently got enshrined.

re: #94

Did you get the new fax cover sheet for those TPS reports?

Sorry if I rankled. Your system is interesting and it makes sense, but I don't know if I'd rank Rucker alongside Swann just yet.

And if your stat system is governed by longevity, then why not just look at career stats?

It's not governed simply by longevity. It's governed by many good seasons. And shouldn't it? Sterling Sharpe was one of the best WR in the league for a couple years, but his career was so short he's unlikely to make the HOF. Longevity is a factor.

Sorry if I rankled. Your system is interesting and it makes sense, but I don’t know if I’d rank Rucker alongside Swann just yet.

I didn't really start watching football until about 1982, and didn't begin following it closely until about 1986 or so.

I never saw Rucker play, and probably only saw Swann play in Super Bowl XIV, so I have no way to judge their credentials subjectively.

I was only comparing their stats over the same period of time, and they are similar.

How to factor the team ranks in number of pass attempts over that time? I'm not sure. One could argue that Swann had it easier because he had Stallworth to take some of the pressure. One could argue that everybody knew Cleveland was throwing the ball in 1976 so it would be tougher for Rucker to get open. So many variables.

For my next rating, maybe I need to give more weight to peak value, give more weight to WR who played in conservative passing offenses and maybe increase the value of yards and TD's over receptions.

Re: 95

I don't think Bennie Friedman's HOF election is a valid comparison to Swann's, because the HOF didn't exist until 1963, 30 years after Friedman had retired. The selectors who passed on Swann the first 13 times presumably had the opportunity to see him play; those who ignored Friedman did not.

How to factor the team ranks in number of pass attempts over that time? I’m not sure. One could argue that Swann had it easier because he had Stallworth to take some of the pressure. One could argue that everybody knew Cleveland was throwing the ball in 1976 so it would be tougher for Rucker to get open. So many variables.

For my next rating, maybe I need to give more weight to peak value, give more weight to WR who played in conservative passing offenses and maybe increase the value of yards and TD’s over receptions.

That's the problem; whatever categories you choose to emphasize will bias the list towards those who did well in those categories. Obviously, Jerry Rice will rank 1st no matter what you do, but the rest of the list will vary wildly. If you don't control for era, post-1994 players will dominate the list. If you assume 60 catches in 1975 is the equivalent of 120 in 1995, 1970's receievers will dominate. And so on.

re: #99

I didn't know Friedman was enshrined in 1963...I thought he wasn enshrined in 2005. So Friedman had 42 chances to be enshrined compared to Swann's mere 14. I don't know why you mentioned that the HOF didn't exist until 1963, unless that was just some FYI.

The point was that being the best of your era doesn't automatically guarantee first ballot enshrinement. Jerry Kramer was probably the best G in the 1960's, and he's still not in. The point about Friedman is that he was probably the best PLAYER in his era, and he had to wait forever. Additionally, Drew Pearson is still waiting for his HOF call.

I guess maybe I am being unclear, or my points are too complex for some people to comprehend. I'll tone it down a little.

Re: #95.

Indirectly, you were discussing Swann's credentials for the HOF. Start back on #75 by Ryan Mc. He's discussing Irvin vs. Swann for HOF. You in #76 say part of the argument is that Swann was the best receiver in his era, whereas Irvin was only 4th/5th. Asked about that comment, and you suggest that for starters, Swann is in the HOF. That seems pretty circular to me.

As for Friedman vs. Swann, I think Travis summed up my rebuttal pretty well.

Art Monk = Vinny Testaverde

The fact that the HOF didn't start until 1963 is a big point. Because it has to with whether the electors actually saw that player perform or not. When did people start thinking Friedman was the best player in the 20s? I'm guessing not in 1963.

Incidentally, he did not have 42 chances to make the HOF. There are different rules for modern players / senior players although now they lump their elections together in the final.

I think I'd rather have wayne chrebet on my team than michael irvin.

Maybe Ernie Irvin,, but not Michael!

To me Monk never looked like a Hall of Famer when he played. During a game you knew he was catching passes and making first downs, but it wasn't until you checked the stat sheet that you realized how much he did.
One of the things that bothers me about the Irvin-Swan comparison is that Irvin played in an era that favored the pass receiver over the defensive back. In the 1970s DBs had much more freedom to contest the receiver for position. And they could push and shove them while in route.

Monk = Testaverde? Monk did at least hold records during his career. For a WR that seems more comparable to Testaverde to me, it would be Irving Fryar - long, pretty good career, but nothing that really stands out and says "HOF!"

And Fryar ends up 23rd on Richie's list.

Re: 101

I understand what you wrote perfectly; presumably, you didn't with mine.

The selectors who passed on Swann the first 13 times presumably had the opportunity to see him play; those who ignored Friedman did not.

My point was that the voting group clearly made a decision to not elect Swann the first 13 years. They had watched him, evaluated him fully, and collectively decided at the time that he was not HOF-worthy.

Friedman's case is very, very different. I'm not sure what the voting procedure was in 1963 (the current process was established in 1970); Friedman might have been considered, or he might have been forgetten about. In later years, I'm not sure how many times the Senior Committee nominated Friedman. Regardless, I'm positive the voting body wasn't and has never been as familiar with Friedman as it was with Swann.

Testaverde and Fryar were both #1 overall picks as well.

>>Maybe a DVOA style analysis of Monk’s success rate is on order.

>Good luck finding the data.

Not a full DVOA, just something comparable. Is data not even available for first downs?

I don't actually believe Monk is comparable to Testaverde, but that's basically what the argument is. Testaverde was never a great QB, but he was a good one for a very long time, and ranks near the top all-time in the counting stats because of his longevity. That's basically what people say about Monk.

The strongest evidence that Monk belongs in the Hall of Fame has already been mentioned and discussed here -- the fact that for the last 3-4 years of his career broadcasters invariably referred to him as "Future Hall-of-Famer Art Monk", as though "Art" was his middle name.

Justin - I think "announcers say future HOFer so-and-so" is one of the big reasons there is a 5 year waiting period to be eligible for enshrinement. To make people back off that sort of pronoucement and look at their careers more objectively.

It is true that Testaverde now owns some of the top career #s for QBs (6th in completions, 6th in yards, 8th in passing TDs) and won't even be considered for the HOF - people recognize what you say. I do think some people are making the same argument about Monk, but I think he was legitimately considered one of the premier receivers for a 3 year stretch (1984-1986). That plus the fact that he once held the record for receptions in a season and receptions in a career, I think, bumps him past stat-accumulator to legitimate HOF prospect. As I mentioned, I don't think that it's as clear as some Monk boosters claim (hi, Matthew Furtek!).

Monk = Testaverde? Monk did at least hold records during his career.

Testaverde did set several records during his career. Most consecutive years throwing a TD pass, most passes had intercepted in a season (non-AFL), most passes attempted in a non-OT game, and best TD-INT ratio in a season (until Peyton Manning broke it). None of these records are of any importance.

Monk (when healthy) was a no-brainer starter on a team that was good enough to win 3 Superbowls from 82-91.

Vinny, for all his numbers, played on many mediocre teams, and even so, at various times in his career, was not the uncontested starter (backup to Kosar initially in Cleveland, backup to Glen Foley initially in NY, benched for Chad Pennington later in NY).

So, my very subjective judgement: if Vinny was my QB, I would have been looking to at least bring in some stiff competition for the QB job, if not replace him. If Art Monk was my WR I'd consider myself absolutely set at one WR position and feel free to concentrate on other areas of the team.

What were we talkin' about again?

re: #102

I still have no idea what you are talking about. My comments on Swann and Irvin were because someone posted "Michael Irvin = Lynn Swann". I don't know how an initial topic could be more clear, but you seemingly have made a mush in your own mind out of everything in an attempt to nitpick some minor point. Thank you for informing me that being elected to the HOF cannot be used when arguing whether or not that player was the best of his era.

As for Travis' rebuttal...I don't really know what it 'sums up' on your part. It was one particular example of a player being overlooked. I also used Jerry Kramer as an example.

Re #116 - you used Kramer simultaneouly to my posting (3 minutes ahead actually according to the time, but when I started my post, yours was not up yet). And was Kramer really considered the best guard of his time? He only made 3 Pro Bowls - '62, '63, '67.

I didn't mean to make any mush in my mind, but I thought this whole thread was about people's chances belonging in the HOF. Players discussed included Monk, Irvin, and Swann. In #49, Richie calls Swann the most overatted HOFer. You defend Swann, and say he was at one time the best of his era, whereas Irvin never was. I figured that was a defense of Swann as a HOFer. Then to defend your point about Swann being the best in that era, you said that Swann was in the HOF. If Swann being the best of his era is a new topic than I don't have a point, but I thought it was pretty clearly in context of Richie saying that he was the least deserving HOFer.

re: #117

Well, I made a new paragraph in my post on the Swann-Irvin issue, because it wasn't related to post #49...similar to how Harold Jackson wasn't related to post #20. I guess I don't understand why I would compare Swann to someone who isn't even in the HOF (Irvin) if I were defending Swann's HOF enshrinement.

And again, even with your comments on Kramer, you haven't added one original thought. You just keep nitpicking. I say Swann was the best of his era...I try to back up my opinion...instead of responding with your own opinion, you just say my opinion is wrong (because Swann made the HOF). Same thing with Kramer and Friedman...I'm just trying to point out something minor, and you keep coming down on me like a ton of bricks with nitpicking. Yeah, the HOF wasn't established until 1963, but does that mean Friedman WASN'T the best player of his era? Yeah, Kramer only made 3 pro bowls, but does that mean he WASN'T the best guard of his era? What other mid-60's guard is in the HOF? Billy Shaw?

Anyway, enough of this orc-talk. I'd like to know who was the best WR in the mid to late 70's.

Wasn't it Lynn Swann?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I'm not trying to come down on you like a ton of bricks. I'm just trying to facilitate the discussion. And the point about the HOF starting in 1963 is that the voters at that time were not contemporaries of Friedman, so maybe they didn't even realize Friedman was the best player in the 20s. The voters at the initial vote for Swann were his contemporaries and they didn't deem him worthy of HOF until his 14th year of selection - the first year that Monk was a finalist, and something I don't believe was a coincidence.

As for the best guard in the 60s, I don't know. I tried to use pro-football-reference quickly, but it doesn't distinguish between guards and tackles. Maybe the voters don't believe a guard has enough impact for HOF?

For the small time-frame 1975-1979, Swann does seem to be a good pick, but I think I'd have to take Drew Pearson. I'm also not sure that Swann stands all that much above Charlie Joiner in the time frame we're talking about, although the Chargers surely passed more than the Steelers. Starting in about '78, I'd say Steve Largent.

re: #120

You have a strange way of facilitating a discussion. I told you 3 times point-blank what my Swann comments were in reference to, yet you still somehow argued what I was referring to. I even attempted to use logic to prove to you that I actually was referring to Swann v. Irvin and how they ranked in their eras as opposed to any HOF banter. I've never had to do that on any message board prior to this.

Its interesting that you think Drew Pearson is the best WR of that era (not that you are wrong) due to the fact that Pearson isn't even in the HOF yet. For all that harping on Swann and 14 chances... :)

Having not seen these guys play at the time, all I have is the numbers.

Cliff Branch from 74-79 looks okay to me.

298 - 5189 - 47

I found a guard that might be considered better than Kramer in the '60s. - Gene Hickerson. He was a 6 time Pro Bowler, and along with Kramer was on the all-decade team for the 60s. Not in the HOF, either. Incidentally, my Q in #117 was really that - a question. I would have guessed that somebody who made only 3 Pro Bowls wouldn't be considered tops at his position.

It's interesting to compare the all decade teams (voted on by the HOF committee, which I found on wikipedia) with the actual HOF. The all 70s WRs include Swann, Pearson, Carmichael, and Warfield. Pearson and Carmichael are not in the HOF. Charlie Joiner is in the HOF, but did not make either the all 70s or all 60s team.

The next question is what "his era" means. Swann and/or Pearson seem like good picks for the small period 1975-1979, but that doesn't seem to be enough to define an era. They both significantly overlapped with Steve Largent, with Charlie Joiner (who started earlier and finished later than Swann), and with Paul Warfield, who I think have legitimate claims to their eras. I think the presence of both of those negate Swann being the best of his own era. Similarly, I think Elway and Marino won't be considered the best of their era due to their overlap with Montana, even though they are both significantly younger.

Examining my point a bit further - there are a few lull points in history, where is' hard to nail down the best WR of an era. Starting now, I'd say most people would say it's Marvin Harrison (arguably Terrell Owens or Randy Moss instead). Going back, you can see where it shifts to Rice. However, there is a small period between Rice and Harrison that probably most belongs to Cris Carter (approx 1996-1999), but I doubt people would say Cris Carter was the best WR in his ear. You can also see where it shifte from Largent to Rice, with no down period. It also seems as though Fred Bilitnekoff could be considered the best of his era. Swann and Pearson take up space as leaders between Bilitnekoff and Largent, but neither of them seem to dominate a long period of time like Bilitnekoff, Largent, Rice, or Harrison.

Swann would be for an even shorter period. 75-79 keeps being mentioned, but in '76 Swann had just 28 catches and 3 TD's. And in '79 he wasn't in the top 10 in catches or yards or TD's. I understand part of that is that Pitt didn't throw as much as other teams, but Stallworth was in the top 10 in all 3 categories.

I don't really have a point.

Based on regular season stats from 1975-1979, I would say these are the leading candidates for best receiver during that period. (I ranked them by roto value: 10 points for most receptions, yards and TD; 9 points for 2nd-most; etc.) I can finish the TPS reports later.

Name rec recYD recTD Roto
CliffBranch 238 4097 34 22
HaroldCarmichael 244 3751 38 21
DrewPearson 251 4238 27 21
KenBurrough 234 4187 31 20
LynnSwann 229 3774 37 18
HaroldJackson 212 3959 31 11
NatMoore 221 3580 36 9
SteveLargent 224 3753 31 9
CharlieJoiner 227 3939 23 9
AhmadRashad 250 3277 22 9
SammyWhite 187 3122 32 6
ReggieRucker 231 3653 27 6
JohnStallworth 184 3299 30 2
MelGray 191 3712 23 2

As far as Redskins deserving enshrinement, I'd go for Chris Hanburger, Russ Grimm, and Joe Jacoby before I'd consider Monk.

Are you sick of my lists yet? Here's another. This time I normalized each player's seasonal stats based on his team's passing offense. (For instance, in 1975, the league average was 83 receptions by wide receiver per team. In 1975, Cleveland was above average with 88 catches by WR, so all Cleveland WR have their receptions multiplied by .95 [83/88=.95]. I did this for receptions, yards and TD. Then, I totalled each WR's adjusted stats for the 5-year period from 1975-1979. I gave each player a percentage rating from each of 3 categories based on the leader in adjusted receiving stats. Harold Carmichael was tops in all 3 categories with 270-4444-33, so he scores a perfect 3.0.)

Rank Name Rate Rec Yd TD
1 HaroldCarmichael 3.0 270 4444 33
2 KenBurrough 2.7 225 4106 29
3 ReggieRucker 2.6 218 3696 30
4 DrewPearson 2.5 248 4023 23
5 CliffBranch 2.4 210 3838 24
6 HaroldJackson 2.3 214 3456 25
7 HavenMoses 2.3 191 3330 27
8 NatMoore 2.3 202 3250 26
9 MelGray 2.2 181 3297 25
10 SteveLargent 2.1 183 3085 24
11 JamesScott 2.1 168 2933 27
12 LynnSwann 2.1 194 3107 22
13 CharlieJoiner 2.1 202 3323 18
14 HenryMarshall 2.0 183 3048 22
15 GlennDoughty 2.0 205 2957 20
16 IsaacCurtis 2.0 157 2826 24
17 AlfredJenkins 1.9 169 3060 19
18 MorrisOwens 1.9 154 2617 25
19 RogerCarr 1.8 163 3001 19
20 AhmadRashad 1.8 196 2866 15

Some of the teams that really sucked at completing passes to their WR's over the late 70's were:

Chicago
New Orleans! (During the 5 years, New Orleans threw 28 touchdowns to wide receivers. The league average was 49 over that period. In 1977, New Orleans WR's combined for 1 TD catch!)
NY Giants
San Francisco
Tampa Bay

Q Richie - doesn't that analysis hurt WRs with more than 1 good WR on an individual team? Maybe I misunderstood your methods, but I would think a modern pair like Holt/Bruce would be degraded vs. somebody that got all the catches like Steve Smith.

Q Richie - doesn’t that analysis hurt WRs with more than 1 good WR on an individual team? Maybe I misunderstood your methods, but I would think a modern pair like Holt/Bruce would be degraded vs. somebody that got all the catches like Steve Smith.

In my latest rankings, having multiple good WR's on a team doesn't really hurt any one player, unless the total team numbers are much larger than average.

In your example, if both Carolina and St Louis WR's combined for 2,000 receiving yards, then all WR's from both teams would have their statistics "normalized" by the same factor.

Now, if Steve Smith, Isaac Bruce and Torry Holt each had 1,000 yards receiving, and the Carolina team total was 1,500 yards and the St. Louis team total was 2,500 yards, I really am not sure how to evaluate which of those three might be better. Does Smith get bonus points for dominating his team's offense, or should he be penalized because he is his QB's only legitimate target?

I'm not saying it's perfect, it's just something I'm thinking out loud with.

An Art Monk discussion and I don't get to post until #132. I hope there is some type of DVOA study for Monk. If one is to be done, he should be compared to Gary Clark immediately in order to bolster or refute the theory of "best WR on his team".

That being said, there a are a few pitballs in the anti-Monk arguments.

Pitfall #1: "Art Monk = Possession WR".
If you look at Art Monk's YPC, it is nearly similar to Marvin Harrison's. Would you consider Marvin Harrison to be solely a possession WR? Who is a better athlete, Monk or Harrison? I realize that comparing 1 stat doesn't mean anything, but no one knocks Harrison for running 7 yard hitches.

Pitfall #2:"If Monk get's in, we need to open up the Hall of Fame to (Jimmy Smith, Henry Ellard, Sterling Sharpe).
Monk's era is noticably different than the post-1994 era we are living in now. If you look at the receptions leaders from that era, it is made up of TEs (Newsome, Winslow, Christenson) and RBs (Craig, Wilder). It wasn't until after the strike that WRs started to dominate the pass catching stats. For this reason I've always preferred to compare Monk to Ozzie Newsome or Kellen Winslow.

Pitfall #3: "Monk doesn't have great stats in the Super Bowl"
You need to take in his whole postseason. What's really odd is that his best games came in losses. I'm not sure what this means, but helping to get your team to the Super Bowl should surely count for something.

Pitfall #4:"Monk wasn't considered a future Hall of Famer or Great while he was playing."

If you go to ArtMonk.wordpress.com you will see a compilation of press reports from staunch voters against Monk.

Pasquerelli (Atlanta JC, October 30, 1996):Ellard is 21 yards shy of supplanting Art Monk, who certainly will be in the Hall of Fame...

Chris Cristl (Green Bay:How many of our critics know that most scouts never rated Monk among the top eight to 10 receivers in the game, except for maybe after two or three of his biggest seasons?
How the hell did this guy end up at the top of the game when he retired then?

Peter King (SI, September 1992):In 1981 wideouts accounted for 42.2% of all completions; by '91 the figure had shot up to 58.1%. In 1986 nine of the top 20 pass catchers in the NFL were either running backs or tight ends; in '91 zero backs and one tight end, Marv Cook of the New England Patriots, cracked the top 20.
Just to put in perspective how much the passing game has changed during Monk's career.
Same article:But the Washington guys are considered the toughest threesome in the league, while also being among the most explosive. Often the Skins use two tight ends to help protect the quarterback, which means Monk and Clark are double-covered on a lot of plays, but they still get open.
Monk and Clark often double-covered!

King and Zimmerman are staunchly against Monk, and I think this comes down to "What is the value of his receptions." Without situational play-by-play, we have no way of knowing if his "8 yard hitches" came on 3rd and 12, or 3rd and 5.

Pitfall #5: "Ignoring Monk's other on-field contributions"
By all accounts, Monk was the leader of the Posse, and a great example for his teamates. In his own quiet way, he stayed in shape during the offseason, ran crisp routes all the time, blocked, and by all accounts came up with the clutch catches when it mattered.

Read this quote from the great Gary Clark (Atlanta JC, Sept 12, 1992):Said flamboyant wide receiver Gary Clark, the antithesis of Monk: "We're back to the basics, and that always includes getting the ball to Art."

I'm not so sure, but isn't Art Monk one of the reasons we use the phrase "possession WR" now? It looks like he helped drive the change from "possession TE" to "possession WR"... I'd like to hear confirmation on that.

I'd like to know why HoF voters think the greatest "possession WR" doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame.

I know everyone is going to tear my arguments apart..."not best on his team", "not consistent pro bowler", "didn't lead the league in yards"... I ask that you get off the talking points and refute the pitfall's that I pointed out, rather than parotting Peter King.

Nobody knocks Harrison because he has been among the league leaders in other categories more frequently than Monk. Why is it that when other people have differing opinions, those opinions are mere "talking points", but our opinions point out "pitfalls" in others' views?

I'm not wildly opposed to Monk's induction, and I agree, matthew, that the Redskins are among the most underrepresented teams in the HOF, relative to the team's performance. I'm just a much bigger supporter of Hanburger (which I think you agree with), Grimm, and Jacoby.

Will Allen,
Agreed on the other Redskins... however...

I'll admit there is some merit against Monk... he's not the slam dunk sure case that us Redskin fans think he is.

One frustrating this is that the case against Monk is well known and accepted because King and Dr. Z are widely read. They portray the case for Monk as a "look at the numbers" deal. It's more than numbers.

When Dr. Z discussed Newsome he talked about how Newsome caught passes in a much tougher environment... how come that hasn't been applied to Monk?

Again... when talking against Monk, it seems that the perception is "Monk didn't have an exceptional career compared to his peers".

People play the "what if?" game with Al Toon, Roy Green, JT Smith, Mike Quick (who was consistently on the NFC pro bowl team), Gary Clark, Anthony Carter, and Henry Ellard.

All of them peers, yet none had a career like Monk. Only Lofton and Largent are in the HoF from that era.

Are 3 Super Bowl rings enough to compensate for not being the deep threat?

Well, I just don't think wide receivers of any era should be compared with the tight ends of the era, any more than offensive tackles should be compared with offensive guards, or defensive ends with defensive tackles. I am not familiar with how Newsome ranked with the tight ends of his era, but my perception is that he ranked near the top, in terms of receptions, fairly frequently among the players at that position.

As far as Super Bowl rings, I think that is a factor often too heavily weighted in the most team-oriented of sports, except to say that a team with multiple Super Bowl victories should probably have multiple HOF candidates and inductees. Which is one reason why I favor Grimm and Jacoby; offensive line performance was the key factor in the Redskins' success in the first Gibbs era.

I favor Hanburger because he was a nine-time Pro Bowler in the era of the selections being made purely by the players, and many of them came prior to Redskins being any good. In football, I think it is a lot harder to be recognized as a superior player when the rest of the team sucks, particularly at the non-skill positions, so for all the drawbacks of using Pro Bowl appearances for evaluating careers (although I'm pretty sure Hanburger was recognized as All-Pro multiple times, which is a lot harder) Hanburger seems to be the most overlooked Redskin.

It is interesting to look at a team which may be slightly over-represented, the Vikings, and contrast them with the Redskins. Certainly Tarkenton and Page are no-brainer selections. It is also hard to keep a guy out, Krause, who has held the career interception mark for about three decades now. Yary really was quite dominant, and those who argued against him, due to his Super Bowl performances, should also keep in mind his performances in NFC championship and playoff games against a fellow Hall of Famer, Jack Youngblood.

Eller is the Viking who was most borderline, and I'd argue that Tinglehoff was more deserving. Tingehoff gets hurt due to his Super Bowl performances, of course, but people forget that by the time Vikings made their first Super Bowl appearance, Tinglehoff likely had already seen his best years, even though he played another eight. It may be a case where a guy's longevity has worked against him. Butkus always said the best center he encountered was Tinglehoff, which is a pretty darned good endorsement.

Of course, I don't mean to overlook Darrel Green, who should be inducted in his first year of eligibility.

So let's tackle this question... who are the "modern era" Art Monk's? To investigate, I used pro-football reference to find receivers in the Top 10 in receptions who were not in the top 10 in yards over the past 4 years (2002-2005). Then using this list I looked at their DVOA.

1) Derrick Mason (2005, 2004)
2) Rod Smith (2005)
3) Lavarneus Coles (2004)
4) Eric Moulds (2004)
5) Steve Smith (2003)
6) Tim Brown (2002)
7) Marty Booker (2002)
8) Peerless Price (2002)
9) Jerry Rice (2002)

*Bonus Non-WR
1) Antonio Gates (2005)
2) LT2 (2003)
3) Charlie Garner(2002)

Let's see how (DVOA/DPAR) rank stack up.

2002 (by DVOA/DPAR rank)
4 WR's @ 41/27, 65/52, 26/15, 24/13
1 Non-WR @ 3/1 (for RB)

2003
1 WR @ 48/36
1 Non-WR @ 31/29

2004
3 WR @ 36/17, 43/23, 54/45

2005
2 WR @ 26/19, 12/10
1 non-WR @ 6/1

Only Jerry Rice in 2002 and Rod Smith in 2005 even sniff the top 10 DPAR, with Peerless Price in 2002 coming in closer. I would expect a Hall of Famer to be every year. More comments to follow.

**Bonus Observation
Marvin Harrison's 2002 season is positevly 1984 Art Monk-like!

I think I'm going to have to re-evaluate my position on Art Monk based on the small research I just did (which probably has flaws on its own).

Under my criteria (top 10 DPAR), only Torry Holt and Hines Ward qualify as playing at a Hall of Fame level in the past 4 years.

Marvin Harrison, Joe Horn, Chad Johnson, Santana Moss, Terrell Owens and Reggie Wayne just miss.

I think this demonstrates how hard it is to maintain a high level of play at the WR position. It's clear that consistently being in the top 10 players at your position (elite) over a period of even 5 years is very impressive.

What about being "elite" for a handful of years, and top 20 "very good" for 10+ years? It's a lot harder to say if that is Hall of Fame worthy, which comes back to the question of standards.

For WRs the Hall can go from Largent and Lofton directly to Irvin and Rice (and maybe Andre Reed)... but if they include Monk, Reed is a shoo-in and the door is open for Rod Smith.

I'm going to have agree with Peter King on Monk... he definatly is in the "Hall of consistently very good".

Matthew - if you look at #136, I don't see another player on that list that I think is a HOFer. Monk does belong in more than them, and I think even more than Andree Reed. My arguments tend to be that #1: I favor Irvin over Monk and there are a few others at other positions currently not in that I favor over Monk (first on my list is Thurman Thomas). Will Allen listed a few other Redskins that he thought belonged in over Monk.

It's clear that Monk is not totally being overlooked as he keeps making the final 15, although not the final 6.

And although Pro Bowls was on your list of overused talking points, I like it because it demonstrates what was thought of that player in those exact years. I'd personally like to see players with 5+ Pro Bowls before I consider them automatics.

re: #137 Hanburger & Vikings

I don't really think that the Vikings are overrepresented, especially when compared to the 1970's Redskins. Most of the Viking HOFers began their careers in the early to mid-60's. Personally, I think those Vikings teams have gotten the shaft so to speak with the HOF. Tarkenton wasn't a 1st ballot guy, Eller had to wait forever (IMO, he should have been enshrined much sooner), Krause had to wait forever, and Tinglehoff is still waiting.

Compared to the Redskins, I think the Vikings' core players played longer than the Redskins 1970's guys. The Redskins defense was remarkable, but its makeup fluctuated every year. The Redskins had a lot of guys on offense & defense who were fantastic but maybe weren't household names long enough: Larry Brown, Ron McDole, Pat Fischer, Jerry Smith, etc.

As for Hanburger, I think he deserves the HOF. He was a big-play guy on defense who could also sustain excellence within a system. Personally, I think Chuck Howley was better than Hanburger because he was a strongside OLB who was also a big-play guy, which IMO is more difficult.

I think this demonstrates how hard it is to maintain a high level of play at the WR position. It’s clear that consistently being in the top 10 players at your position (elite) over a period of even 5 years is very impressive.

Yes! This is why Reggie Rucker continues to appear at the top of my rankings of late-70's WR's. He's one of the few guys who was consistently good over that period.

re: #143

Not to beat a dead horse, but I don't remember Reggie Rucker ever being considered an elite WR. Funny how on one hand some people rip on Lynn Swann for having so few pro bowls, then on the other hand some people proclaim Reggie Rucker being an elite WR despite a whopping 0 pro bowls.

senser,

I never said that Rucker was an elite WR. I only said that he had similar numbers to Lynn Swann, and that he appears at the top of statistical rankings.

Are you guys still here?

Don't you know that Ben Rotoburger was in a motorcycle accident this afternoon?

I don't think Reggie Rucker is anywhere near an elite WR. A quick glance at his pro football reference .com page shows only a few seaons where he was top 10 in any normal WR stat - in '73, he was 6th in receptions and 8th in yards, in '75, he tied for 2nd in catches, in '76, he was 6th in TDs, and in '78 he was 6th in yards and tied for 8th for TDs. Presumably, the reason he comes up towards the top of Richie's lists is that the had a reasonable career for a reasonably long time. However, I probably would like to see peak value weighted more in those lists.

Hmmm....well, I tried squaring the season ratings for each player, that pushed Rucker down from 47 to 55 all time. Then I cubed the season ratings for each player, and that pushed Rucker down to 65. At 65, he shows up ahead of Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce, Art Monk, Rod Smith, Andre Reed and Michael Irvin to name a few.

I think Reggie Rucker was just plain a guy who was a decent receiver for a longer than average amount of time. That's going to get him a high ranking in any objective system I believe.

I love running these kinds of ratings, so if anybody has suggestions for improvement, I'd love to hear them. Should yards per catch be factored in? Should receptions, yards and TD's be weighted equally? What else should be considered for objective rankings?

Richie - not an easy solution. I guess to value peak seasons you could give extra weighting to seasons where players were in the top x at some stat in their position. Of course, that x makes an arbitrary demarcation point.

For Hall of Fame, though, I think that might be reasonable. However, we all have some subjective view of peak + longevity. For example, I think Sterling Sharpe had a good enough peak for HOF, but because he only played for 6 years, he's out. Irving Fryar, OTOH, had a decent career and gets longevity points, but doesn't have a great peak. If Sharpe filled up the rest of his years with even Fryar's weak years, I think he'd be in.

Re: 148

I'd rank yards first.
Then I'd rank average, TDs, and catches. But what do I know?

Roger Carr had a big year in 1976. He only caught 43 passes but they went for 1112 yards and 11 touchdowns.

And what about a guy like Paul Warfield? He was a very effective split end in Miami. He played there for five years. In those five seasons, he caught only 156 balls in 60 games, but 33 were good for touchdowns.

The middle three years he was voted either 1st or 2nd team All-NFL by the Associated Press.
The first year he was voted 2nd team All-NFL by the Newspaper Enterprise Association and was voted All-AFC by The Sporting News.
In his final Miami season he was voted All-AFC by Pro Football Weekly and was voted 2nd team All-AFC by United Press International.

Perhaps in your next rankings you can also weigh in All-NFL, All-AFL, All-Pro, All-Conference selections, and maybe Pro Bowls and maybe BLESTO rankings. (I don't believe a regular joe could find the latter. I think senser81 was the dude who said he has that info. He didn't say his info was from BLESTO, but that would be my best guess. Maybe he works for BLESTO.)

Richie - not an easy solution. I guess to value peak seasons you could give extra weighting to seasons where players were in the top x at some stat in their position. Of course, that x makes an arbitrary demarcation point.

My problem with basing it on rankings, not actual stats, is that a player may be penalized when he shouldn't. For instance, let's say that in 2005, the top two rushing leaders had 2,106 and 2,100 yards respectively. Third place in the NFL had 1,000 yards rushing. Realistically, there is no difference in the total yardage of the top 2 guys, and they should be valued equally - or at least almost equally.

Perhaps in your next rankings you can also weigh in All-NFL, All-AFL, All-Pro, All-Conference selections,

Can this information be found online someplace?

re: 152

All that info from 1920-1998 can be found in "Total Football II". I do not know if that information is online anywhere. My guess is it probably isn't or if it is it is scattered all over the place. Like, maybe you could find the AP results someplace, TSN results in another place, etc.
I would suggest finding a copy of "TFII" if you don't already have it and then piece together 1999-2005 results, which may be easier to find online.

This is something I may put in my blog, but would take me a long time to do.

The other thing I wish I could find is games played data for all players (at all positions) for the past 10 years or more.

re: 154

You could look at recent copies of the NFL Record & Fact Books and The Sporting News' Guide and Pro Football Register books.

If your library doesn't have them, you may be able to find them online. Maybe TSN has some of the old ones for sale.

Wait. The 2006 ESPN Pro Football Encyclopedia (ad on this page) will be in stores in late July.
That will contain games played for every player.

I'll be buying a copy the first day it is in stores. First NFL encyclopedia since TFII was published in summer '99.

I hope ESPN's Pro Football Encyclopedia is better than the College one. I haven't looked at it in a while, but I remember being a little disappointed. Of course, as an ownder of Total Football and Total Football II, maybe my expectations were set too high. Thanks for reminding me to look at them a little more often!

re: 157

I think the ESPN PFE will be the football version of the ESPN Baseball Encyclopedia which you can find at Barnes & Noble.

Gary Gillete and Pete Palmer are the main contributors to the PFE. Michael MacCambridge edited the college encyclopedia. I find it to be okay, but I could see it getting better with subsequent volumes.