HoF Semifinalists Announced

[LaserFocus]

2 hours ago, Sugashane said:

Ah, blindsiding people is his claim to fame and something that should aid him to the Hall of Fame, by your account.

 

While you're stroking it to your own nonsense, I'll let Brandon Meriweather and James Harrison know that their headshots (or as you would say, tackling excellence)  help change the rulebook, so they have something to help their case for entrance to the Hall. Maybe we should start crediting and nominating those who caused the rules to be enforced against facemasking, high/low blocks, being suspended for PEDs, and such, as they clearly "changed the NFL."

 

With your thousands of hours of focus, how have you missed the fact that WR blocking has ALWAYS been emphasized? You know, when the NFL was run-first for so many years? Him blasting players who were unaware was what he was initially noticed for, not because he was the Larry Allen of WRs. Keep going though, I'm sure you can continue talking yourself into anything. You seem to find yourself very convincing.

Those hits weren't illegal at the time, so I don't understand your point. Besides, Ward delivered other effective blocks in his career. You're wrong about WR always being emphasized, it simply wasn't the same when a strong blocker like Art Monk played. It's quite factual, and yes, I've spoken to NFL scouts.

[LaserFocus]

3 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

1. Being on a title team shouldn't be a huge part of a player's legacy. On field performance should be what's determined. 

2. Being the leading receiver of a "storied" franchise shouldn't mean much. Is his career less impressive if he's on a different team? He's 25th in total yardage and will probably only hold the distinction of leading the Steelers in yards for three more seasons anyway. The next retired career Steeler on the list is John Stallworth who is currently 71st in yardage. A team not having any good receivers in the current era shouldn't be a reason to put someone in the HOF.

3. Hines Ward isn't that great of a post season player. His per game averages are: 5 catches for 66 yards and .56 TDs. For a season that's 80/1056/9. That's a good season, but that's not an elite player by any means. He's basically Davante Adams in the playoffs.

4. Superbowl MVP is legit.

5. Being a dirty player and taking advantage of a horrible rule isn't a reason for HOF induction. You act like earholing players is some heroic action. It's freaking horrible and dirty and unsafe. This shouldn't be an addition to his legacy, in fact I'd argue the opposite. Should we be giving Bernard Pollard HOF consideration for the league instituting a rule for him?

1. If a key player helped a team win a title, or be a consistent contender it has to be part of his legacy. Ward's on-field performance was part of the reason for the success.

2. Being the leading receiver of a storied franchise will always be significant, because of the history of other greats that player passed. John Stallworth would be killing it today in this passing-friendly era. As I said before , it's not the HOF of yardage. How many rings do Moss and Owens have?

3. Hines Ward is a better postseason receiver than many WRs already enshrined. In addition to the SB MVP, Ward delivered outstanding four outstanding playoff games. Age was catching up to Ward in his last few playoff games, but we can't discount those games. Ward also has a high TD total when compared with other HOF WRs.

4. Those hits weren't illegal until the league changed its policy. And football isn't safe, Ward delivered plenty of direct blocks during his career.

[Forge]

30 minutes ago, LaserFocus said:

Those hits weren't illegal at the time, so I don't understand your point. Besides, Ward delivered other effective blocks in his career. You're wrong about WR always being emphasized, it simply wasn't the same when a strong blocker like Art Monk played. It's quite factual, and yes, I've spoken to NFL scouts.

Why isn't it the same? Monk and rice were great blockers...and not considered dirty. Ward didn't do anything special in that regard. Some people don't even consider him the greatest blocking wide receiver ever. Its the same as its always been...some receivers are strong blockers and take pride in it (i think robert woods is considered a top notch blocking receiver now if i remember right), some don't really care. It was the same 30 years ago, the same 15, the same in present day. 

The bolded is completely anecdotal and doesn't prove a thing or mean a thing. 

 

[Forge]

45 minutes ago, LaserFocus said:

1. If a key player helped a team win a title, or be a consistent contender it has to be part of his legacy. Ward's on-field performance was part of the reason for the success.

2. Being the leading receiver of a storied franchise will always be significant, because of the history of other greats that player passed. John Stallworth would be killing it today in this passing-friendly era. As I said before , it's not the HOF of yardage. How many rings do Moss and Owens have?

3. Hines Ward is a better postseason receiver than many WRs already enshrined. In addition to the SB MVP, Ward delivered outstanding four outstanding playoff games. Age was catching up to Ward in his last few playoff games, but we can't discount those games. Ward also has a high TD total when compared with other HOF WRs.

4. Those hits weren't illegal until the league changed its policy. And football isn't safe, Ward delivered plenty of direct blocks during his career.

1. It really doesn't. Its nice that he won one, but wide receiver is an isolated position that doesn't guarantee a super bowl. Why does it help Ward's case if he played worse in the playoffs than TO and Moss but his team happened to be better. The mvp is legit, but he wasn't an all time great postseason performer. The super bowls certainly shouldn't matter when compared to superior overall players.

2. Your Stallworth comment is complete supposition. Means absolutely nothing. Maybe he would have been good, maybe not. As for the rings, it doesn't matter with regards to To and moss. How many rings does Marino have? Archie? Its about the best players, not about the players who played for winning teams. Its the hall of fame based on what you did on the field. TO and Moss were easily better receivers than Ward. 

It also shouldn't matter if your team has been around 50 years longer than another team. What Ward did for the steelers is the same as if he did them for the Jags. You also shouldn't get credit if you are the greatest receiver for a team that just happened to not have the likes of Chris Carter or Jerry Rice. If owens played his entire career with the niners, finishing with the same career, ward somehow gets more credit for being the leading receiver in Pittsburgh history than TO because he happened to play for the same franchise as Rice?

3. Some of his stats do match up well with some, not so much with others. I said it earlier: he has a stronger case than some, a weaker case than others, and a comparable case to a few

4. You're missing the point. The rule change reflects negatively on him; other players considered him dirty. The nfl fined him multiple times for acts they deemed dirty. Affecting the game in that way is not a good thing. It wasn't because he was so great at it that it changed. 

In the NHL, they have the trapezoid rule. Its commonly called the Martin Brodeur rule because he was so great at handling the puck. When a rule is changed because of how good you are at something, thats impacting the game and considered a positive for that players legacy. They didn't change that rule because Ward was such a great blocker. They changed it because those hits are dangerous and players and the nfl alike considered them dirty. 

[Small Town Values]

I’ve already resigned myself to the fact that T.O. will be snubbed again. I haven’t watched the induction ceremony since he was unfairly overlooked his first year of eligibility.

I have a feeling I won’t be watching anything HOF related for quite some time.

Shame, because the HOF ceremony used to signal the start of football season for me.

[LaserFocus]

28 minutes ago, Forge said:

Why isn't it the same? Monk and rice were great blockers...and not considered dirty. Ward didn't do anything special in that regard. Some people don't even consider him the greatest blocking wide receiver ever. Its the same as its always been...some receivers are strong blockers and take pride in it (i think robert woods is considered a top notch blocking receiver now if i remember right), some don't really care. It was the same 30 years ago, the same 15, the same in present day. 

The bolded is completely anecdotal and doesn't prove a thing or mean a thing. 

 

Yes, Monk and Rice were talented blockers. Unfortunately, we don't have blocking stats, so we don't know for sure who was the greatest ever. I did see Monk and Rice in action, but Ward remains the best I have seen until someone else comes along. The coverage and emphasis on blocking by the WR position increased in the 2000s, and Ward was cited as the top guy. If that's not impacting the game, I have to disagree. I just don't believe NFL Films is wrong, nor the countless people who covered the NFL and raved about Ward's blocking during his career. We saw it during those countless games as well, just because you can't quantify something doesn't mean its untrue.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

Randy Gradishar is also a strong candidate that has been overlooked for a long time. I think it's about time he should be inducted. It's like people forgot he existed. 

[LaserFocus]

26 minutes ago, Forge said:

1. It really doesn't. Its nice that he won one, but wide receiver is an isolated position that doesn't guarantee a super bowl. Why does it help Ward's case if he played worse in the playoffs than TO and Moss but his team happened to be better. The mvp is legit, but he wasn't an all time great postseason performer. The super bowls certainly shouldn't matter when compared to superior overall players.

2. Your Stallworth comment is complete supposition. Means absolutely nothing. Maybe he would have been good, maybe not. As for the rings, it doesn't matter with regards to To and moss. How many rings does Marino have? Archie? Its about the best players, not about the players who played for winning teams. Its the hall of fame based on what you did on the field. TO and Moss were easily better receivers than Ward. 

It also shouldn't matter if your team has been around 50 years longer than another team. What Ward did for the steelers is the same as if he did them for the Jags. You also shouldn't get credit if you are the greatest receiver for a team that just happened to not have the likes of Chris Carter or Jerry Rice. If owens played his entire career with the niners, finishing with the same career, ward somehow gets more credit for being the leading receiver in Pittsburgh history than TO because he happened to play for the same franchise as Rice?

3. Some of his stats do match up well with some, not so much with others. I said it earlier: he has a stronger case than some, a weaker case than others, and a comparable case to a few

4. You're missing the point. The rule change reflects negatively on him; other players considered him dirty. The nfl fined him multiple times for acts they deemed dirty. Affecting the game in that way is not a good thing. It wasn't because he was so great at it that it changed. 

In the NHL, they have the trapezoid rule. Its commonly called the Martin Brodeur rule because he was so great at handling the puck. When a rule is changed because of how good you are at something, thats impacting the game and considered a positive for that players legacy. They didn't change that rule because Ward was such a great blocker. They changed it because those hits are dangerous and players and the nfl alike considered them dirty. 

1. WR is an important position on the field, and HOF players like Swann and Rice were also SB MVPs. Ward's performances in the postseason and regular season usually helped in a winning effort. I never said Ward was an all time great postseason WR, like Rice. However, he's a strong playoff player, better than many other WR already enshrined. Team success matters, as it always should.

2. Agree with Moss and Owens being better receivers than Ward, but I'm hoping they'll have to wait before donning a gold jacket. Players who didn't always give their best efforts, or were troublemakers should pay a price. The WR greats of the 70s and 80s would love to compete in today's NFL. John Stallworth had a size/speed combination to excel.

3. Agree, Ward isn't an inner circle HOF guy.

4. The vast majority of Ward's hits were clean, it will have zero impact on his eventual HOF induction. 

[Sugashane]

1 hour ago, LaserFocus said:

Those hits weren't illegal at the time, so I don't understand your point. Besides, Ward delivered other effective blocks in his career. You're wrong about WR always being emphasized, it simply wasn't the same when a strong blocker like Art Monk played. It's quite factual, and yes, I've spoken to NFL scouts.

Not being flagged and being legal aren't mutually exclusive. Refs can miss calls too, and not ONLY against the Steelers. You also missed how I mentioned those other acts were legal at one time. When the rule is nicknamed after you, that is nothing to be proud of.

You not understanding is an understatement. You'd be up in arms if this was about TO or some other non-Steeler, or if it was a WR that took a cheapshot and broke Antonio Brown's jaw. (even if the hit was by rule legal at the time)  He delivered "other effective blocks?" Shocking... Randy Moss was known for being a mediocre blocker but has thrown many "effective blocks." First you overreach on your ridiculous claim, then you completely undershoot on it.   Can't even stay consistent with your own nonsense. lol   Remember the quote, “Hard to trust honesty of inconsistent person.”

You're a nameless, faceless online persona. I have no reason (nor do you have proof) that you spoke with a number NFL scouts. But by all means, please repeat your nonsense about speaking with them again.

I also forgot how there are truth. Scouts heralded JaMarcus Russell as the next elite QB, so that must mean it was true too...because...NFL scouts... I know, you probably talked to them.

 

 

[Sugashane]

1 hour ago, LaserFocus said:

1. If a key player helped a team win a title, or be a consistent contender it has to be part of his legacy. Ward's on-field performance was part of the reason for the success.

2. Being the leading receiver of a storied franchise will always be significant, because of the history of other greats that player passed. John Stallworth would be killing it today in this passing-friendly era. As I said before , it's not the HOF of yardage. How many rings do Moss and Owens have?

3. Hines Ward is a better postseason receiver than many WRs already enshrined. In addition to the SB MVP, Ward delivered outstanding four outstanding playoff games. Age was catching up to Ward in his last few playoff games, but we can't discount those games. Ward also has a high TD total when compared with other HOF WRs.

4. Those hits weren't illegal until the league changed its policy. And football isn't safe, Ward delivered plenty of direct blocks during his career.

1. Part of his legacy, yes. But it is a small portion because of it being a Hall of Fame, not a Hall of Super Bowl Wins. Dion Branch has 2 rings and a Super Bowl MVP, you want him in the Hall?

2. In any year would Hines have taken their teams to a Super Bowl when they did not? No. Could they have switched spots and improved the PIT offense, yes. Your point is moot.

3. Randy Moss has the same number of postseason TD catches while playing less postseason games. Part of Ward's success was having the defenses keyed more in on Bettis and Co than him. Everyone keyed on Moss for all but the end of his career in SF.

4. It is less safe when you're skirting around rules and have to attack those not looking, and not near the ball at all. Blocks in the back are considered cowardly, these should be too. And again, even Moss delivered direct blocks in his career. Just an empty statement.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

Ward was never in the conversation for best receiver in the NFL at any point in time during his career. Never led in any major statistical category for his position. That's a huge knock on him. Same for a ton of other guys like Derrick Mason, Rod Smith, Irving Fryar, Anquan Boldin,  Keenan McCardell, Donald Driver, or Eric Moulds. Even guys who I think have a stronger case like Jimmy Smith, Sterling Sharpe, Torry Holt, Issac Bruce, and Henry Ellard, it's going to be very hard to get into the HOF.  And guys with better resumes/bigger impact are on the way. I think Ward is going to get lost in the mix. 

[Jetzger]

How many times will Ray Lewis thank God in his 2 hour speech?

And if Randy Moss doesn't get in 1st ballot I am so... SOOOOOOOO done with the HOF for good... 

 

 

...until next year where I will inevitably get irrationally upset at the idiotic voting once again.

[AlexGreen#20]

Is Ward better than Jordy Nelson?

[TecmoSuperJoe]

1 minute ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Is Ward better than Jordy Nelson?

No.

[AlexGreen#20]

39 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

No.

Most Packer fans don't consider Jordy anywhere near a HOF guy. Not sure why Ward is treated differently.