Hall of Fame credentials

[QuikSand]

With the presence of so many established players in this year's Superbowl, there has been a lot of talk about the HoF - in particular (to my ears) numerous mentions of Tim Brown as a "lock first ballot" entry. Now, I have no real bone to pick with Tim Brown (other than stealing Don McPherson's Heisman trophy, but I've let that one pass, sort of)... but it/he has gotten me thinking about the Hall of Fame a bit.

In particular, I'm a bit concerned that the Hall of Fame, and the genericized system fo electing players to it, seems to reward longetivity most of all, and brilliance second after that. I don't suggest that I can articulate the perfect balance... but I can say that I think perhaps the current balance it tilted a bit too far in the direction of longetivity.

Tim Brown has had a very nice career, has played for a long time, and has been blessed to remain productive through most of it (dodging serious injuries along the way). He's a classy guy, too. The result of all this - he's near the career leaders in most categories, and will go to the Hall of Fame.

Now, take a step back. At what point was Tim Brown the best receiver in the game? Never. Could you ever have made the case that he was the #1 receiver in football? Not really. He made a number of Pro Bowls, being among the top four wideouts in the AFC... a decent, but not stellar standard, honestly.

Okay, maybe he's just suffering because his career is contained within the years where Jerry Rice played. Fair argument. But at various times throughout Tim Brown's career, it seems to me that not only was he never #1 - but he was rarely even a truly "elite" player. I can think of plenty of players who were, at various times, substantially more productive than Tim Brown-- players like Gary Clark, Sterling Sharpe, Andre Rison, Cris Carter, Herman Moore, Carl Pickens, Marvin Harrison, Terrell Owens all come to mind pretty readily. I think I'd take "three good years" from any of these guys ahead of the same from Tim Brown.

And that brings me to my main point. I think our insistance on longetivity and career stats rewards some things well, but other things not so well. I have to imagine that Andre Rison will never be seriously considered for the Hall of Fame... but I htink that at his best he may well have been a better player than Tim Brown was at his best. And on a certain level, that doesn't sit well with me. (Please dont' get caught up in the particulars here - if you want to argue that Andre Rison was a so-and-so, please just focus on the general point... plug in Sterling Sharpe there, or whomever helps you understand the concept)

I know that great pefrormances come and go, but there's something to be said for "established brilliance." In the NFL, mabe it's 3-4 years of top-level play... I'm not sure. I don't think you prove it with one season, but I also don't think that you need to play for 12-15 years, either.

Gale Sayers went to the Hall of Fame on this principle. Terrell Davis might be our next case study in the same arguments. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples in the past (skill position players are easiest, but I suspect they are all over the place). I'm starting to think that I support more recognition for the players who really dominated, and for enough time to let us all know that it was "for real."

I wish Tim Brown well, and don't begrudge him at all his spot in Canton. But at the risk of cheapening the glory itself, I think it's kind of too bad that Herman Moore will never make it there.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by QuikSand
In particular, I'm a bit concerned that the Hall of Fame, and the genericized system fo electing players to it, seems to reward longetivity most of all, and brilliance second after that. I don't suggest that I can articulate the perfect balance... but I can say that I think perhaps the current balance it tilted a bit too far in the direction of longetivity.

Interesting topic. This is actually a major problem right now for the Hockey Hall of Fame. Players who were never considered among the elite are retiring with 500 or 600 goals, which used to mean automatic entry.

Combine that with a pretty relaxed entry policy, and suddenly anyone with good but not great credentials gets in (especially if they're American).

The end result is a very watered down Hall of Fame. I've heard complaints about baseball's hall being too tough to get into, but I'd much prefer that to the NHL option.

Back to your NFL topic, I think Davis will be an interesting test as compared to guys like, say, Bettis or Curtis Martin.

[Fritz]

Quik,

It will be interesting to see which "lock" HoFers still playing or recently retired will actually make it in and how many will make it on the first ballot.

I think that five year waiting period will turn some sure things into maybes.

[Easy Mac]

Its like this in every sport. The fact that people have to debate Ryne Sandberg getting into the hall is beyond me. He was the best 2nd baseball in baseball for like a decade.

But hif you let someone in on a 3-4 year run, then Canseco has to get in. He got injured after a 3-4 year run (a la TD), but Canseco ended up self destructing later. I don't see the difference in those cases except Canseco tried to come back.

I think HOF's are a sham for the most part. It's far too watered down for me.

[WebEwbank]

This is the dilemma Bill James deals with extensively in his baseball work: peak value versus career value. I think both types have merit, and, as at Cooperstown, Canton never really explicitly distinguishes between them. For peak value, I would take Earl Campbell over any back I ever saw, and Joe Namath over any QB. For career value, Emmitt Smith or Walter Payton are clearly much more dominant.

[cthomer5000]

Just like as much as I'm a Curtis Martin fan, I'd take Terrell Davis at his peak in a heartbeat. Ultimately I think the hall of fame should be both. A player should have been consistently above average, and even brilliant at one point.

[oykib]

I think that you have to look at both, too. But with Tim Brown you're forgetting about all the fine work that he did as a special teamer. He was also one of the best punt returners in the NFL for ten years. Early in his career he was one of the top returners.

Also, unlike a lot of these guys Brown didn't put up system numbers. That goes for Sharpe, too. But guys like Rison, Moore, et al. obviously put up some numbers in years where the league was in transition and helped them accomplish them.

If you start from Jerry Rice's rookie season I'd go:

1. Rice
2. Sharpe
3. Carter
4. Harrison ( not yet, but in four years... )
5. Brown
6. Owens

I think everyone on this list is a Hall of Famer. I included Owens because I think he's the next step down. That's arguable. But all these guys are Hall of Famers.

I say durability is nearly as important as people make it out to be, especially in football where everyone is playing hurt by the end of the season. Look at Sterling. He was much better than his brother ( another sure-fire HOFer ). But he had the freak neck thing. Would you rather have had him for eight years or Brown for twice as many.

[Darkiller]

Very good topic Quik.

I like that sentence from Fritz :
"I think that five year waiting period will turn some sure things into maybes."

I believe this is true, and that when the hype for the recently retired player is long gone : careers are seen with a different angle/point of view maybe...

For instance, when Jim Kelly retired, the common though was that his 4 straight losses in the SuperBowl would be a main handicap in his making the Hall of Fame. the concensus was that he would probably make it at some point, but almost certainly not in the 1st ballot;
5 years later...the free agency era being what it is, the dynasties being long gone, everyone recognized the value of having been to the BigGame 4 straight times, and how difficult (maybe impossible) that would be to do it now.
As a result, he was a 1st ballot Hall of Famer.

so this 5 year waiting period is indeed a good thing because it gives everyone a chance to reflect on a player's career.

For example, there is not a single day where I don't give a though about Steve Young and the Hall of Fame.
He's been retired for 3 years now, and will be eligible on 2 years (class of 2005) and I just can't wait. I think back at all the records, MVPs, great games, SuperBowl...everything he's done...and my reflection now is more of : what has he brought to the game of football ?
and I found out that, on top of all his achievements, he's been one of the very first successfull scrambling QBs, and certainly the one that was also the best passer and his legacy was that now : current QBs are drafted high when they are great athletes too...when they can make plays on the run, it's a new breed of QBs (Vick, McNabb, Culpepper etc...) that are in the Steve Young mold.
my point here is that the past 3 years that I've been thinking of Steve Young's HOF credentials, my reflection has evolved from
1 - his achievements ...to...
2 - what he REALLY brought to the game.

and I think this is the kind of reflection that people/voters have as well, the kind of reflection that might not make Tim Brown a slam dunk 1st ballot Hall of Famer, 5 years after he retires...

[cthomer5000]

Darkiller,

I agree with your perspective on most things but there were quarterbacks who ran before Steve Young played in the NFL.

[Darkiller]

I know : Fran Tarkenton is an example of that.

but really, none were AS great a passer nor AS successful (I mean, truely successful) in the long run as Steve Young...

don't you agree ?

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by Darkiller
I know : Fran Tarkenton is an example of that.

but really, none were AS great a passer nor AS successful (I mean, truely successful) in the long run as Steve Young...

don't you agree ?

I would say Fran tarkenton was very nearly that level. Steve Young is definitely a hall-of-famer, I just think you exaggerate his role in NFL history. He didn't revolutionize the game.

[HornedFrog Purple]

If the theory is that Tim Brown has not been one of the Top 5 wide receivers since he has been in the league, then you havent been paying attention to Tim Brown.

When you consider the average length of service of the NFL and look very closely at Tim Brown's contribution not only in pass catching, but in special teams, his class and his leadership then there is no point of a Hall of Fame. He in particular has reached that pinnacle. As a side note, he is a Heisman Trophy winner that was not a bust, something that is increasing in regularity. 9 1000+ yards receiving is nothing to laugh at. This is almost the same argument one could make about Emmitt Smith.

There are HOF's that have gone in without playing a "full" career such as Gale Sayers. Was he the best at the time he played? Absolutely.

[bbor]

Originally posted by Maple Leafs
Interesting topic. This is actually a major problem right now for the Hockey Hall of Fame. Players who were never considered among the elite are retiring with 500 or 600 goals, which used to mean automatic entry.

So i guess you don't agree with Clark Gilles (sp?) getting in this year..AHHAHA...what a travesty....perhaps John Anderson will get in now too...he does make good burgers.

[JeeberD]

Originally posted by Darkiller
I know : Fran Tarkenton is an example of that.

but really, none were AS great a passer nor AS successful (I mean, truely successful) in the long run as Steve Young...

don't you agree ?

How about Roger the Dodger? Staubach was a great passer and scrambler, and no one can deny his success.

Also gotta throw a bone to Randall Cunningham(which with me being a Cowboys fan is hard to do). He never led a team to a Super Bowl, but he was a hell of a passer and runner in his prime.

[condors]

roger "the dodger" staubauch scrambled and was a pretty good player (even though i hate the cowboys)

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Randall might be on the bubble but it would be great to see him in as well as for Warren Moon ...with his CFL stats he leads all time list . Moon really didnt get much press coverage during his carreer though and he was on very horrible teams .

[Fritz]

perhaps if young were not so quick to run he would have had more than 3 complete seasons.

[TroyF]

I think the poster boy for this is Art Monk. A lot of years and a lot of catches, but he really wasn't ever considered the best in the game.

In Brown's defense, he has finished in the top 5 of the NFL in receiving yards 4 times and was 8th another time.

Lets compare Moore and Brown's best 4 years spurts. Brown (interestingly enough, I think both occured between '94 and '97 for each player):

372 catches, 5,163 yards, 33 TD's. 13.88 yards per catch

Moore's best:

405 catches, 5,448 yards, 42 TD 13.45 yards per catch.

Both played in all 16 games for those four years. The numbers per game break down like this, Brown always being the first number:

catches per game: 5.813, 6.328. Yards per game: 80.67, 85.13 TD's per game: .52, .66

If Moore's numbers had simply destroyed Brown, I might have had to think a little bit. Less than 100 yards and 5 catches per season over that span do not really sway me into thinking Moore was that much higher than Brown.

Now, back to Monk. His best 4 years:

317 catches, 4,406 yards, 18TD's

Granted, we have differing time periods, but I don't see how you can put him into the same place as Brown.

Just my two cents,

TroyF

[Maple Leafs]

Originally posted by bbor
So i guess you don't agree with Clark Gilles (sp?) getting in this year..AHHAHA...what a travesty....perhaps John Anderson will get in now too...he does make good burgers.

I didn't agree with Bernie Federko either. I played road hockey almost every day during the 80s, and me and my friends never argued over who got to "be" Bernie Federko.

Of course, once they let Joe Mullen in, the whole thing went to hell.

[DolaBump]

Originally posted by TroyF
I think the poster boy for this is Art Monk. A lot of years and a lot of catches, but he really wasn't ever considered the best in the game.

In Brown's defense, he has finished in the top 5 of the NFL in receiving yards 4 times and was 8th another time.

Lets compare Moore and Brown's best 4 years spurts. Brown (interestingly enough, I think both occured between '94 and '97 for each player):

372 catches, 5,163 yards, 33 TD's. 13.88 yards per catch

Moore's best:

405 catches, 5,448 yards, 42 TD 13.45 yards per catch.

Both played in all 16 games for those four years. The numbers per game break down like this, Brown always being the first number:

catches per game: 5.813, 6.328. Yards per game: 80.67, 85.13 TD's per game: .52, .66

If Moore's numbers had simply destroyed Brown, I might have had to think a little bit. Less than 100 yards and 5 catches per season over that span do not really sway me into thinking Moore was that much higher than Brown.

Now, back to Monk. His best 4 years:

317 catches, 4,406 yards, 18TD's

Granted, we have differing time periods, but I don't see how you can put him into the same place as Brown.

Just my two cents,

TroyF

Just to give Monk's numbers a little perspective, there, though, his three best years were sandwiched by a strike shortened season and an injury shortened season. The strike shortened year (which was a MUCH better year for him than a year in which he was coming off of a broken leg), he was on pace to add another 29 catches and 375 yards, which would have given him

346 rec, 4,781 yards and 22 TD's -- not that those stats were ever actually there, but he had an even better year the following year -- not necessarily as good as Brown or Moore in their time, but not in a totally different class (especially since he was almost never running a route over 15 yards -- those were reserved for Sanders and Clark).

[ColtCrazy]

Personally, I think Art Monk should have made it by now. At one point, we was the all-time leading receiver in NFL history before the pass happy 90s blew that away. Then there's his 100 catch year in the mid 80s, something I believe had only been accomplished once before that. Then there's the 3 super bowls. Yeah, his stats don't match up to some others that played later on, but I think we have to look at the time they played in. Also, longevity has to equal consistency, something both Monk and Brown have had.

My dad and I, having been Colts ticket holders for years, have had many discussions about possible HOFers on different teams, especially the early 90s bills. Kelly's in. You'd have to think Thomas and Smith will get in to. After that? Reed? Kelso? Bennett? They may only get 3 in.

Now for QBs, I think it's a shame Stabler hasn't made it. Super Bowl champ, many division titles, nearly 200 TDs. Yes, there's more Ints than TDs, but there are already some QBs in the hall that are like that, at least the ones from way back. With more passing now, I don't think you'll ever see that again. Moon should make it as well. Cunningham is iffy, his rushing would get him in. Young, Favre, Marino, Elway are obvious locks.

Here's a good bubbleman. Boomer Esiason. Something like 230TDs. League MVP. Super Bowl appearance. Would he make it?

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by WebEwbank
This is the dilemma Bill James deals with extensively in his baseball work: peak value versus career value. I think both types have merit, and, as at Cooperstown, Canton never really explicitly distinguishes between them. For peak value, I would take Earl Campbell over any back I ever saw, and Joe Namath over any QB. For career value, Emmitt Smith or Walter Payton are clearly much more dominant.

That was exactly how I would have replied to QS's question about HoF credentials. Personally, I have a bias in that I feel that 10 good years far outweigh 4 great years. Rob Neyer says the same thing when talking about Bert Blyleven and Ryne Sandberg. It may be just a perception, but I feel that there are more players having peak years than ever before. I think this may be especially true for the NFL where the increase in violence leads to shorter careers. But still, I just don't like to see players being inducted based on peak value because it would be hard to draw the line. I think Roger Maris is the best example of this and I would suspect that if someone today hits 70 and 75 HRs and do nothing else, he would be considered a viable candidate, more than Maris ever was.

But, as been mentioned, the credibility of both the baseball and football hall of fames is next to nothing, imo. The politicizing (as Bill James wrote in a superb book) and "let's admit everyone" attitude ruins any type of standards, imo. When the Veteran Committees let in marginal older players because they were their buddies or because of some perceived imbalance, then we cannot adequately debate the merits of one player over another. When Canton admits every single Steelers of the 1970s, whether they have the stats or not, just because they played on that team, then what's the point about debating whether Brown, Monk, Moore or others should be admitted?

[Fritz]

I think it is funny that folks argue over the V in MVP but not the F in HoF.

Should noteriety play a role? If so, could it play the primary role for some?

[Buzzbee]

I don't think players deserve to be in the hall of fame for a few great seasons, or for their notoriety. Should we put Bucky Dent in the Hall of Fame for booting a sure out in the World Series? Should we induct Mario Mendozza for being a career .215 hitter? Albert Belle for corking bats and playing running back in the base paths? I think not.

I think someone like Eddie Murray is a good example of longevity getting you into the hall. He never had a superstar season. He never hit more than 33 home runs in a season. He had more than 100 RBI in only 6 of his 21 seasons. Take any 5 years of Eddie Murray's career and you WON'T get a Hall of Famer. Take any 10 years and you could probably make a good argument. But take 20 years and you get 3,000 games - 1,627 runs - 3,255 hits - 504 home runs - 1, 917 RBI - and a career batting average of .287. THAT is why I don't believe a few great years makes a Hall of Famer.

Dale Murphy and Kirby Pucket were two of my favorite players growing up. I was happy when Kirby was voted into the Hall of Fame. However, I don't believe he belongs there. Dale Murphy is a class act and I would love for him to be in the Hall of Fame. However, when you look at his career, he really had two great years ('82 & 83) and the rest were somewhat mediocre. Yes he was surrounded by sorry talent and probably would have had better numbers on a better team. Regardless, I consider him someone who is close, but no cigar.

Sorry for the long post. I didn't intend to ramble this much.

[Fritz]

Is it fair to use baseball as an example when talking about the Pro Football HoF?

[Anrhydeddu]

I don't see any difference between the Veterans Committee admitted their buddies and the Pro Football HoF admitting the Steelers based on reputation.

[CentralMassHokie]

Bill James came up with a list of questions to help better put prospective baseball Hall of Famers into context. It's not a metric, by any means, but it's a good jumping off point. I imagine it would work well for football, with some tweaks.

Here's the Keltner List from Bill James:
Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

Was he the best player on his team?

Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?

Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?

Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?

How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award?

How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?

If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple

This is almost the same argument one could make about Emmitt Smith.

Of course, Emmitt has 3 Super Bowl championship rings, an NFL MVP award, and was generally regarded as THE premier player at his position (if not the league) for a number of years. I'm not saying TB should not make the HOF, but comparing him to Emmitt (other than the career longevity, Heisman, and class act ideas) doesn't quite fit.

[clintl]

Three points:

1) I think being very good for a long time is just as impressive as being great for a short time.

2) No matter where you set the standards, there will be people who think they're too low. I think the Baseball Hall of Fame requirement (75% of the voters) is plenty restrictive enough, and just don't see an argument that the standards are too low as particularly plausible.

3) We don't know yet whether the new Veterans Committee in baseball will be easier or tougher on the nominees than the old one. They have yet to vote even once.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Originally posted by Craptacular
Of course, Emmitt has 3 Super Bowl championship rings, an NFL MVP award, and was generally regarded as THE premier player at his position (if not the league) for a number of years. I'm not saying TB should not make the HOF, but comparing him to Emmitt (other than the career longevity, Heisman, and class act ideas) doesn't quite fit.

Yeah but that opens up a whole can of worms of who you consider the premier player at his position at whatever time which I dont feel like getting into. Some people say Barry was the premier back at that time.

The awards are important too, but its still a team game. Tim Brown although I consider him a great player with HOF in his resume still can only do so much, which would be the same case I would make for Barry Sanders also.

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple
Yeah but that opens up a whole can of worms ... which I dont feel like getting into.

C'mon, this board loves to open up a whole can of worms! I would now, but filet mignon is calling my name.

[nilodor]

On the topic of Art Monk, he was a prototypical possesion receiver, not in the hall and gets left out of alot of great receiver dicussions. He was also one of the greatest players of the century. Should he be penalized because he could not gove up top on a corner? Do you think it takes more skill, or less skill to run faster and jump higher than someone, ala Randy Moss compared to running precise routes?

[kcchief19]

Wow. I'm must admit that I'm surprised that anyone would argue that Tim Brown is not a HOFer. The guy ranks in the top five all-time in receiving yards, all-purpose yards and receptions. If he's not a HOFer, who is?

The argument that Tim Brown may never have been the best receiver in the NFL for a year or a period of years. If you give me charts, graphs and an easel, I could make that argument for almost every HOFer there is, with the exception of Babe Ruth.

A great example is Pete Rose. Disregarding the gambling ban, there are plenty of people who tell you that Rose is a HOF lock. But when was he ever the best second basemen, left fielder or first baseman in baseball? He was a punch and judy hitter who hustled for 24 years. Hell, almost anybody get 4,200 hits if they played for 24 damn years. Even in his MVP year, he only hit .338 with 5 HRs, 64 RBIs and 10 SB. What kind of stats are those?

The obvious answer is that statistics alone do not tell the whole story. No doubt Jerry Rice is a great receiver, but do you think he would have put up the numbers he did playing for the Al Davis and the Raiders? No way.

Ultimately, I think the definition of a HOFer is the same as pornogarphy -- you know it when you see it. Steve Tasker played forever and was the best special teams player in the league, but no way he's a HOFer. Playing 15 years isn't enough. But if you put up 1,000 yards receiving for nine straight years, you've got something.

I will agree that the Pro Football HOF is a diluted piece of crap. The fact that four players must make it every year ensures that less than great players will make it.

I have also never understood the whole "first ballot" nonsense. If you aren't good enough to make it on the first ballot, what about you improves over the years. There are a number of questionable candidates in the baseball HOF, but nothing like the football HOF.

[Kosta]

Just throwing this out there...

Kurt Warner never plays another down.... do you think he is a chance for the HoF?

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by Kosta
Just throwing this out there...

Kurt Warner never plays another down.... do you think he is a chance for the HoF?

No

But the Pro Football Hall of Fame is pointless anyway - any Hall of Fame that has a minimum amount of yearly inductees is a waste of time.

Brown will be in there at some point - and I wouldn't argue against that anyway.

[sterlingice]

Moon really didnt get much press coverage during his carreer though and he was on very horrible teams .

I mean, I know that Bills loss (and Broncos and Chiefs and that whole couldnt-get-out-of-the-second-round-of-the-playoff thing) was crippling but he did lead our Oilers to the playoffs every year from 1987 to 1993. I don't think those were really bad teams. Sorry, just had to bring that up.

SI

[oykib]

Kurt Warner-- No way in Hell...

The problem with the Pro Football Hall of Fame is the fact that football statistics are funny. They change the rules every year. They play strange schedules where one team can play twice as hard a schedule as another.

These factors leave it wide open to opinionated evaluation. Unfortunately, it also leaves it open to electioneering. When you look at the Hall and see that half the Steelers of the 70s and half the Packers of the 60s you have to scratch your head. If these teams were fielding 10-15 Hall of Famers, how'd they ever lose a game. Last time I checked only the '72 Dolphins went undefeated...

[TroyF]

Nildor,

You want me to be honest here?

Outside of 84-85, I look at a player who finished in the top 5 of a category only once more in his entire career.

With the exception of '89, when he finished 3rd in receptions and 10th in receiving yards, he had a fairly average career. Only counting 16 game seasons, Monk had as many years under 700 yards as he did over with over 1,000. This is a good player, not a great one.

I also disagree about the just running fast and outjumping everyone garbage. A HOF WR needs to be a playmaker IMO, not just a guy who catches 8 yard routes. To each his own. . .

TroyF

[DolaBump]

Originally posted by TroyF
Nildor,

You want me to be honest here?

Outside of 84-85, I look at a player who finished in the top 5 of a category only once more in his entire career.

With the exception of '89, when he finished 3rd in receptions and 10th in receiving yards, he had a fairly average career. Only counting 16 game seasons, Monk had as many years under 700 yards as he did over with over 1,000. This is a good player, not a great one.

I also disagree about the just running fast and outjumping everyone garbage. A HOF WR needs to be a playmaker IMO, not just a guy who catches 8 yard routes. To each his own. . .

TroyF

Not to continue a debate that I'm sure could never be settled, but as I stated before, Monk lost 3 years of his prime to two strike seasons and a broken leg -- not that that makes up for the yards but as I point out above, his numbers were not that far off from Brown and Moore in their prime -- and ther is something to said about a guy who was a playmaker early in his career and adapted his game as he got older to become the ultimate posession receiver (This was a guy who NEVER came up two feet short of a first down).

[WebEwbank]

So, to summarize the Keltner list:

Was he THE best for a while ?

Was he among the best for a long time ?

Did he leave a (non-quantitative) mark on the game ?

I think any one of the three would qualify someone for the HoF.