HoF Semifinalists Announced

[LaserFocus]

7 hours ago, PapaShogun said:

He was a limited player then. He shouldn't get a pass for not being as productive as players that were more productive than he was at the time he played. It's like excusing a running back for averaging three yards a pop due to slowness/lackluster vision, but having a ton of yards, and saying he should be in because he was a tough, hard nose, blue collar, had a high motor, brought his lunch pail, insert irrelevant adjective. This is why someone like Eddie George isn't enshrined. And even he has a first team All Pro to his credit. By the way what was Ward's greatest season then? He has nothing on Bruce's best whatever it was.

Inner circle receiver. What does that even mean? I think you made it up.

If it was all about performance only and no bias, then certain players would have never had to wait ridiculously long and/or still wouldn't be waiting. Like Jerry Kramer. Or Randy Gradishar, yet Harry Carson is in. Terrell Owens has been snubbed twice already. The voting system is not that good, let lone perfect like I said earlier. 

Ward doesn't have HOF credentials, largely because he didn't stack up to the majority of his peers that dominated during the time he played. Fortunately for him, he may be able to get in because of the inconsistent voting standards already in place. So that's cool.

Hall of Famers come in different versions, lifetime totals is one reason Eddie George isn't in the HOF. Inner circle is a common term to describe a HOF player in all sports who is on the tiny list of all time greats at his position. Jerry Rice would lead that list at the WR position. At the RB position, that's players like Jim Brown, Walter Payton, etc.

It's not the HOF of yards per catch, and Ward made up for his lack of speed by excelling in other areas as I've described before. The value he added to those strong Steelers teams was high, and his excellence in catching passes in often tight quarters was known for anyone watching football in the 2000s. The physicality in taking those hits, then also helping in the blocking aspect was certainly different. While I agree with Bruce as a HOF pick down the line, he played a game better suited to his strengths. WRs like that would have been less effective, it would have been the same as asking Ward to consistently run deep routes. Terrell Owens should wait because he was a selfish, childish, player.

No voting system is perfect, but I'll take someone with extensive experience watching football who uses stats as a general guideline, as opposed to someone who relies 100% on data.

When everything is considered, Ward definitely has HOF credentials. Impressive lifetime stats, stellar postseason play, key cog in a contender(2x SB champ), alltime receiving leader of a prestigious franchise, and excelling in something unusual at his position. It'll take a while, but Ward is a HOF player, and time will prove me correct.     

[LaserFocus]

10 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Ward is an accumultor. 

He's a guy who put together good but not elite production for a long time. He's got one elite season. 

He's the poster child for the Hall of Very Good.

 

10 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Chad Johnson has 4 seasons of more yards than Ward's best.

Ward just played more years than Johnson. While that has some value, peak play should be a bigger factor than longevity.

Ward enjoyed a strong age 33 season with 95 catches, you'll find many HOF receivers without that kind of production. Definitely not a compiler, his final two seasons of lesser productivity was the natural aging process. Chad Johnson was too often a clown, well known for his moronic acts off the field. Ward has both peak, longevity, and other assets Johnson can't match. It's not the HOF of receiver yardage.  Ward isn't a inner circle HOF WR, but the qualifications will get him across the finish line. Mark my words, I was correct about Jerome Bettis. The voters who rely on both watching the game and stats will carry the day. I do believe the fans who were teenagers during the 2000s are more likely to undervalue a player like Ward, since they are more likely to have the fantasy football mentality.    

[AlexGreen#20]

1 minute ago, LaserFocus said:

Hall of Famers come in different versions, lifetime totals is one reason Eddie George isn't in the HOF. Inner circle is a common term to describe a HOF player in all sports who is on the tiny list of all time greats at his position. Jerry Rice would lead that list at the WR position. At the RB position, that's players like Jim Brown, Walter Payton, etc.

It's not the HOF of yards per catch, and Ward made up for his lack of speed by excelling in other areas as I've described before. The value he added to those strong Steelers teams was high, and his excellence in catching passes in often tight quarters was known for anyone watching football in the 2000s. The physicality in taking those hits, then also helping in the blocking aspect was certainly different. While I agree with Bruce as a HOF pick down the line, he played a game better suited to his strengths. WRs like that would have been less effective, it would have been the same as asking Ward to consistently run deep routes. Terrell Owens should wait because he was a selfish, childish, player.

No voting system is perfect, but I'll take someone with extensive experience watching football who uses stats as a general guideline, as opposed to someone who relies 100% on data.

When everything is considered, Ward definitely has HOF credentials. Impressive lifetime stats, stellar postseason play, key cog in a contender(2x SB champ), alltime receiving leader of a prestigious franchise, and excelling in something unusual at his position. It'll take a while, but Ward is a HOF player, and time will prove me correct.     

What did Ward make up for his lack of speed by doing? We've proven that it wasn't First Downs where he sits at the back of the pack when compared with the other HOF contendors of his era.

We know that Ward has only one elite season to his name and the rest of his career is not HOF worthy on a per season basis.

All time receiving leader of a franchise is not nearly as impressive as it sounds when you consider that he's only 25th in receiving yards in league history, and very likely won't have that distinction by the time he comes to be voted on. If Antonio Brown passes Hines Ward in 2020 and Ward is no longer the all time receiving leader of a prestigious franchise, does that make him less worthy of being in the HOF, and change your vote?

I thought we debunked Stellar Postseason play?

He had three good playoff runs in 2002, 2004, and 2007 (only one game). He also had lousy playoff runs in 01, 08, 10, and 11. Even 05 was 3 crap performances and a big win in the superbowl. 

[AlexGreen#20]

24 minutes ago, LaserFocus said:

 

Ward enjoyed a strong age 33 season with 95 catches, you'll find many HOF receivers without that kind of production. Definitely not a compiler, his final two seasons of lesser productivity was the natural aging process. Chad Johnson was too often a clown, well known for his moronic acts off the field. Ward has both peak, longevity, and other assets Johnson can't match. It's not the HOF of receiver yardage.  Ward isn't a inner circle HOF WR, but the qualifications will get him across the finish line. Mark my words, I was correct about Jerome Bettis. The voters who rely on both watching the game and stats will carry the day. I do believe the fans who were teenagers during the 2000s are more likely to undervalue a player like Ward, since they are more likely to have the fantasy football mentality.    

A player enjoyed a good but not elite season (relatively) deep into his 30s, and you feel that this is an example of someone not being a compiler? It's not like Ward was consistent with that production either. His age 33 season was his second best yardage season. 

He didn't crack 1000 yards in his 29, 30, or 31 season despite being relatively healthy (only missing 6 games over those three seasons).

Guys with really good career numbers who didn't consistently have great seasons are compilers. 

+++++++++++++++++

Getting off topic: Jerome Bettis was at least a better compiler than Ward and plays a position more inclined to get into the HOF.

Bettis was 6th all time in yards and 11th all time in TDs.

Ward was 25th all time in yards and 15 all time in TDs.

They're not close to each other and many feel that Bettis shouldn't have gotten in on the basis that he really only had 3 "elite" seasons and finished 9/13 seasons with a YPC under 4.0.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

How does Ward have peak performance over Chad Johnson? 

Chad Johnson's best 5 year peak is: 92/1374/9

Ward's best 5 year peak is: 91/1109/8

It doesn't get any better if you go to 4, 3, 2, or 1 year spreads either. 

Johnson was even significantly better at what you give Ward the most credit for in first downs.

Johnson finished 4th, 7th, 1st, 4th, and 2nd in first downs in his 5 year peak.

Ward finished 19th, 4th, 6th, 20th, and 15th in first downs in his 5 year peak.

[LaserFocus]

33 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

What did Ward make up for his lack of speed by doing? We've proven that it wasn't First Downs where he sits at the back of the pack when compared with the other HOF contendors of his era.

We know that Ward has only one elite season to his name and the rest of his career is not HOF worthy on a per season basis.

All time receiving leader of a franchise is not nearly as impressive as it sounds when you consider that he's only 25th in receiving yards in league history, and very likely won't have that distinction by the time he comes to be voted on. If Antonio Brown passes Hines Ward in 2020 and Ward is no longer the all time receiving leader of a prestigious franchise, does that make him less worthy of being in the HOF, and change your vote?

I thought we debunked Stellar Postseason play?

He had three good playoff runs in 2002, 2004, and 2007 (only one game). He also had lousy playoff runs in 01, 08, 10, and 11. Even 05 was 3 crap performances and a big win in the superbowl. 

Ward's excellence in the shorter routes, especially when he was moved to the slot is well chronicled. We have a disagreement on the definition of elite seasons, Ward had plenty in comparison with other HOF receivers. Yes, even if Brown becomes the Steelers all time leading receiver in 2020(and that's no sure bet), Ward will deserve to be recognized for his standing all those seasons. Ward's postseason accomplishments still compare favorably to many receivers both in and out of the HOF. That's the definition of stellar.

[LaserFocus]

16 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

A player enjoyed a good but not elite season (relatively) deep into his 30s, and you feel that this is an example of someone not being a compiler? It's not like Ward was consistent with that production either. His age 33 season was his second best yardage season. 

He didn't crack 1000 yards in his 29, 30, or 31 season despite being relatively healthy (only missing 6 games over those three seasons).

Guys with really good career numbers who didn't consistently have great seasons are compilers. 

+++++++++++++++++

Getting off topic: Jerome Bettis was at least a better compiler than Ward and plays a position more inclined to get into the HOF.

Bettis was 6th all time in yards and 11th all time in TDs.

Ward was 25th all time in yards and 15 all time in TDs.

They're not close to each other and many feel that Bettis shouldn't have gotten in on the basis that he really only had 3 "elite" seasons and finished 9/13 seasons with a YPC under 4.0.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

How does Ward have peak performance over Chad Johnson? 

Chad Johnson's best 5 year peak is: 92/1374/9

Ward's best 5 year peak is: 91/1109/8

It doesn't get any better if you go to 4, 3, 2, or 1 year spreads either. 

Johnson was even significantly better at what you give Ward the most credit for in first downs.

Johnson finished 4th, 7th, 1st, 4th, and 2nd in first downs in his 5 year peak.

Ward finished 19th, 4th, 6th, 20th, and 15th in first downs in his 5 year peak.

This isn't a 100% stats discussion, and there is little difference in your five year peak numbers. Where is the data in first downs in winning games? If we really broke down Johnson's first down rate, I think you'd see a bunch of those first downs happened in Bengal losses. When a team is going to lose, it's common for the defense to play soft, allowing first downs and yardage.

[AlexGreen#20]

Just now, LaserFocus said:

Ward's excellence in the shorter routes, especially when he was moved to the slot is well chronicled. We have a disagreement on the definition of elite seasons, Ward had plenty in comparison with other HOF receivers. Yes, even if Brown becomes the Steelers all time leading receiver in 2020(and that's no sure bet), Ward will deserve to be recognized for his standing all those seasons. Ward's postseason accomplishments still compare favorably to many receivers both in and out of the HOF. That's the definition of stellar.

Why does Ward's excellence not show up in any form of quantitative analysis? The eye test shows he was a good but not great receiver for a long time. His stats show that he was a good but not great receiver for a long time. Surely if he was excellent in the shorter routes, he would have excellent production on first down catches. Why doesn't he have that.

What is your definition of an elite season? Give that to me and we can analyze Ward vs his competition in meeting your criteria. Unless part of your criteria gives bonus points for wearing black and gold, Ward will continue to fall short in this definition like he has in EVERY other attempt we've made at finding something relevant Ward is elite at. 

Ward will have held the franchise record for 11 years. That's not that impressive. This isn't a 50 year record falling.

Even if acknowledge that Ward's postseason accomplishments still compare favorably to many HOF WRs, and I think that's probably a fair argument. Does that make up for him falling behind in SO MANY other categories. 

[AlexGreen#20]

4 minutes ago, LaserFocus said:

This isn't a 100% stats discussion, and there is little difference in your five year peak numbers. Where is the data in first downs in winning games? If we really broke down Johnson's first down rate, I think you'd see a bunch of those first downs happened in Bengal losses. When a team is going to lose, it's common for the defense to play soft, allowing first downs and yardage.

250 yards and a TD is a significant distinction, yes. That's 1250 yards and 5 TDs over the course of the study. That's a lot.

The Bengals were 42-38 in those years. They were an above .500 team. Any argument that he was stat padding in blowout losses is nonsense.

If we make the cut off for when the defense stops trying, to be two scores (more than 16 points):

Bengals 17 or more point losses from 2003 to 2007: 7

Steelers 17 or more point losses from 2001 to 2005: 7

Sorry buddy, not seeing a lot of difference in the blowout losses making room for stat padding.

[Non-Issue]

Ray Lewis is the only stone cold lock. TO and Moss have the resume, but you have to wonder if the antics keep them from being first ballot. So while they should be stone cold locks, I have my doubts.

But dude.... please... put Steve Atwater in Canton. Dude was unbelieveable. 

[LaserFocus]

53 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

250 yards and a TD is a significant distinction, yes. That's 1250 yards and 5 TDs over the course of the study. That's a lot.

The Bengals were 42-38 in those years. They were an above .500 team. Any argument that he was stat padding in blowout losses is nonsense.

If we make the cut off for when the defense stops trying, to be two scores (more than 16 points):

Bengals 17 or more point losses from 2003 to 2007: 7

Steelers 17 or more point losses from 2001 to 2005: 7

Sorry buddy, not seeing a lot of difference in the blowout losses making room for stat padding.

It just doesn't move the meter, Johnson's off field antics were a nightmare for the Bengals to handle. Ward's first downs(and other catches & blocks) played a key role in a two time SB champs success in the 2000s. We just can't diminish that fact, Johnson doesn't have the HOF case Ward does.

[AlexGreen#20]

Steelers in 2001: 22.0 PPG vs. Bengals in 2003: 21.6 PPG

Steelers in 2002: 24.4 PPG vs. Bengals in 2004: 23.4 PPG

Steelers in 2003: 18.8 PPG vs. Bengals in 2005: 26.3 PPG

Steelers in 2004: 23.3 PPG vs. Bengals in 2006: 23.3 PPG

Steelers in 2005: 24.3 PPG vs. Bengals in 2007: 23.8 PPG

Steelers from 01-05: 22.6 PPG vs. Bengals from 03-07: 23.7 PPG

Tell me again how Ward and the Steelers offense were so much more impactful than Johnson and the Bengals offense??

++++++++++++++

Ward ended up on a good team with a great defense.

Johnson ended up on a mediocre team with a ****ty defense.

If Johnson ended up on the Steelers and Ward on the Bengals, you'd be making the argument that Johnson should be a lock HOF and Ward is just a pretty good receiver.

[LaserFocus]

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Why does Ward's excellence not show up in any form of quantitative analysis? The eye test shows he was a good but not great receiver for a long time. His stats show that he was a good but not great receiver for a long time. Surely if he was excellent in the shorter routes, he would have excellent production on first down catches. Why doesn't he have that.

What is your definition of an elite season? Give that to me and we can analyze Ward vs his competition in meeting your criteria. Unless part of your criteria gives bonus points for wearing black and gold, Ward will continue to fall short in this definition like he has in EVERY other attempt we've made at finding something relevant Ward is elite at. 

Ward will have held the franchise record for 11 years. That's not that impressive. This isn't a 50 year record falling.

Even if acknowledge that Ward's postseason accomplishments still compare favorably to many HOF WRs, and I think that's probably a fair argument. Does that make up for him falling behind in SO MANY other categories. 

Quantitative analysis isn't 100% accurate, especially when we're talking about sports. There are people who claim Peyton Manning had a good SB against Seattle because the numbers say so. That's factually incorrect, the bulk of Manning's numbers happened after the game was out of hand. Manning lost his composure early in that game, playing poorly, and tossed a pick which was returned for a TD the other way. In the second half of that SB, Seattle defenders were laughing at the eight yard completions to receivers like Wes Welker. The Seahawks were playing softer coverages, and were happy those passes were caught in order to get the game over. It's all about context, sports aren't mathematical equations with binary outcomes.  Ward's HOF case is built on a diversity of work, which compares to receivers already enshrined.

I think my eye test is similar to most HOF voters. Stats matter, but they are only guidelines, Brandon Marshall won't be in the HOF if he retired right now. The eye test involves giving credit to a player with signature moments, and doing something to impact the game. It also involves the key contribution to one of the top organizations of the 2000s. Both the HOF RB and future HOF QB were aided by Hines Ward. The postseason will always matter, and Ward has a impressive TD career total when compared with other HOF receivers. Unlike Marvin Harrison, and so many other HOF receivers, Ward did not have a HOF QB throwing to him until later in the career. That affects the numbers, along with playing in a cold climate.

Ward is right there in lifetime categories at the time he retired with other HOF receivers. Paul Warfield had a modest catch total, and Michael Irvin was in the 700s. In other words, outside the inner circle guys, other WRs had areas which weren't ideal.     

[LaserFocus]

8 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Steelers in 2001: 22.0 PPG vs. Bengals in 2003: 21.6 PPG

Steelers in 2002: 24.4 PPG vs. Bengals in 2004: 23.4 PPG

Steelers in 2003: 18.8 PPG vs. Bengals in 2005: 26.3 PPG

Steelers in 2004: 23.3 PPG vs. Bengals in 2006: 23.3 PPG

Steelers in 2005: 24.3 PPG vs. Bengals in 2007: 23.8 PPG

Steelers from 01-05: 22.6 PPG vs. Bengals from 03-07: 23.7 PPG

Tell me again how Ward and the Steelers offense were so much more impactful than Johnson and the Bengals offense??

++++++++++++++

Ward ended up on a good team with a great defense.

Johnson ended up on a mediocre team with a ****ty defense.

If Johnson ended up on the Steelers and Ward on the Bengals, you'd be making the argument that Johnson should be a lock HOF and Ward is just a pretty good receiver.

If Chad Johnson were on the Steelers, I think he would have been run out of town for his idiotic behavior. Johnson also underperformed in the postseason, I don't think the 2000s Steelers would have achieved as much with Johnson.

[AlexGreen#20]

6 minutes ago, LaserFocus said:

Quantitative analysis isn't 100% accurate, especially when we're talking about sports. There are people who claim Peyton Manning had a good SB against Seattle because the numbers say so. That's factually incorrect, the bulk of Manning's numbers happened after the game was out of hand. Manning lost his composure early in that game, playing poorly, and tossed a pick which was returned for a TD the other way. In the second half of that SB, Seattle defenders were laughing at the eight yard completions to receivers like Wes Welker. The Seahawks were playing softer coverages, and were happy those passes were caught in order to get the game over. It's all about context, sports aren't mathematical equations with binary outcomes.  Ward's HOF case is built on a diversity of work, which compares to receivers already enshrined.

I think my eye test is similar to most HOF voters. Stats matter, but they are only guidelines, Brandon Marshall won't be in the HOF if he retired right now. The eye test involves giving credit to a player with signature moments, and doing something to impact the game. It also involves the key contribution to one of the top organizations of the 2000s. Both the HOF RB and future HOF QB were aided by Hines Ward. The postseason will always matter, and Ward has a impressive TD career total when compared with other HOF receivers. Unlike Marvin Harrison, and so many other HOF receivers, Ward did not have a HOF QB throwing to him until later in the career. That affects the numbers, along with playing in a cold climate.

Ward is right there in lifetime categories at the time he retired with other HOF receivers. Paul Warfield had a modest catch total, and Michael Irvin was in the 700s. In other words, outside the inner circle guys, other WRs had areas which weren't ideal.     

Your first paragraph might literally be the worst straw man argument of all time.

1. Nobody even slightly reputable claims that Manning had a great superbowl? He was freaking awful by every statistical measurement. He needed 49 throws to get to 280 yards. He threw 2 picks and only one TD. He had a passer rating of 48. Every reputable statistician, mathematician, and person with the even the most elementary understanding of statistics understands Manning's performance and statistics were horrendous.

2. What the hell is the relevance of Peyton Manning's ****ty super bowl performance in a discussion about Hines Ward? The answer is nothing and you only bring it up in a (poor) attempt at discrediting the statistical analysis that damns Ward's HOF credibility. 

3. Sure Ward had some signature moments in his career. Nobody is disputing that. 

4. Hines Ward's impact on the game aren't HOF worthy. He just wasn't good enough for the vast majority of his career. He was a good receiver, arguably even very good. But the HOF isn't the NBA which allows everybody in. The NFL HOF is a big deal, and a guy with only one elite season doesn't belong.

5. There were a lot of receivers with HOF caliber statistics that didn't have HOF caliber QBs, in fact basically all of them didn't at one point in their careers. Ward is not unique in this respect. He's closer to the standard.

[LaserFocus]

2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Your first paragraph might literally be the worst straw man argument of all time.

1. Nobody even slightly reputable claims that Manning had a great superbowl? He was freaking awful by every statistical measurement. He needed 49 throws to get to 280 yards. He threw 2 picks and only one TD. He had a passer rating of 48. Every reputable statistician, mathematician, and person with the even the most elementary understanding of statistics understands Manning's performance and statistics were horrendous.

2. What the hell is the relevance of Peyton Manning's ****ty super bowl performance in a discussion about Hines Ward? The answer is nothing and you only bring it up in a (poor) attempt at discrediting the statistical analysis that damns Ward's HOF credibility. 

3. Sure Ward had some signature moments in his career. Nobody is disputing that. 

4. Hines Ward's impact on the game aren't HOF worthy. He just wasn't good enough for the vast majority of his career. He was a good receiver, arguably even very good. But the HOF isn't the NBA which allows everybody in. The NFL HOF is a big deal, and a guy with only one elite season doesn't belong.

5. There were a lot of receivers with HOF caliber statistics that didn't have HOF caliber QBs, in fact basically all of them didn't at one point in their careers. Ward is not unique in this respect. He's closer to the standard.

 I've seen more than a few posts about Manning's SB versus Seattle, it's definitely not something I made up. They praised the amount of completions and yardage in that game. It's one of many examples of not using context when digesting data.

Like Bob Hayes(who impacted the NFL with his speed), Hines Ward impacted the NFL with his blocking. Ward's other accomplishments fit nicely into other HOF receiver examples.

It's not Hines Ward's problem other receivers have close, but ultimately, fall short of the HOF. Jimmy Smith hurt himself with dope, Henry Ellard failed to help himself in the postseason, and the list goes on and on. I still think this is a generational issue, with the overwhelming number of Hines Ward deniers being teenagers(or younger) during 2001-2009. I think those fans have a fantasy football perspective, which isn't a total picture of the sport. There is no number or value, which should ever determine who is a HOF player.