godtomsatan Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Hayes is being kept out for off-field stuff; IMO Hayes is the second-most significant WR in NFL history (the most significant being Don Hutson; the greatest is obviously Jerry Rice). Hmmm. I hear where you're coming from, but I just am not certain that I can go along with it as a sure-fire guy. Sure he may have been the impetus behind the creation of the zone defense, but his impact was not a sustained thing. Here's another way of looking at it: There are already 5 WR in the HOF who debuted in the '60s: Lance Allworth (62), Charlie Taylor(64), Paul Warfield (64), Fred Biletnikoff (65), Charlie Joiner (69). There are 4 WR in the HOF from the '70s: Lynn Swann (74), John Stallworth (74), Steve Largent (76), James Lofton (78). There are only 2 WR presently in the HOF from the '80s: Art Monk (80), Michael Irvin (88). Hayes' era has been spoken for. Spread that out to the QB, RB, and TE from the '60s who have been inducted in the Hall already and it makes it an even blurrier line as to whether he's HOF material. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Hmmm. I hear where you're coming from, but I just am not certain that I can go along with it as a sure-fire guy. Sure he may have been the impetus behind the creation of the zone defense, but his impact was not a sustained thing. I dunno; his career may have been somewhat brief, but his numbers for that era are pretty darn good (even though they look anemic today); and I think that even if his peak wasn't as long as others, there's something to be said for inducting a player who strikes the fear of Holy Sweet Jesus into every defensive coordinator who comes up against him. There are already 5 WR in the HOF who debuted in the '60s: Lance Allworth (62), Charlie Taylor(64), Paul Warfield (64), Fred Biletnikoff (65), Charlie Joiner (69). There are 4 WR in the HOF from the '70s: Lynn Swann (74), John Stallworth (74), Steve Largent (76), James Lofton (78). There are only 2 WR presently in the HOF from the '80s: Art Monk (80), Michael Irvin (88). Hayes' era has been spoken for. Spread that out to the QB, RB, and TE from the '60s who have been inducted in the Hall already and it makes it an even blurrier line as to whether he's HOF material. Eh, I don't buy that. Especially since guys like Joiner and Monk were never "dominant" players...heck, neither was Swann for that matter, he just made purty catches in the Super Bowl. Anyway, of those 5 60s WRs, I think I'd take Hayes over all that are in except Alworth (who for my money is #3 on the all-time list) and I'd take Lionel Taylor over Hayes as well...but he isn't in, is he? As far as 80s WRs, I doubt we'll see ANY more of those guys in - well, Rice excepted, though he played the bulk of his career in the 90s, much like Lofton's best seasons were in the 80s. People will look at their #s and compare them to today's inflated #s and...well, that'll be about it. They just don't match up to the offensive bloat we're seeing right now. Tough break, Gary Clark and Henry Ellard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 I dunno; his career may have been somewhat brief, but his numbers for that era are pretty darn good (even though they look anemic today); and I think that even if his peak wasn't as long as others, there's something to be said for inducting a player who strikes the fear of Holy Sweet Jesus into every defensive coordinator who comes up against him. Led the NFL in TD receptions in 1965 and 1966 (his first two seasons). Ranked #2 in receiving yardage in 1966. Otherwise, never finished in the top 3 of a WR-type category. Again, I understand the "impact" angle of his speed f'ing up the dominant paradigm of defensive philosophy, but it appears to me that the defenses caught up by his 3rd season and he became a different type of player. A good one, at times very good, for several years afterwards, but not dominant. Eh, I don't buy that. Especially since guys like Joiner and Monk were never "dominant" players...heck, neither was Swann for that matter, he just made purty catches in the Super Bowl. Anyway, of those 5 60s WRs, I think I'd take Hayes over all that are in except Alworth (who for my money is #3 on the all-time list) and I'd take Lionel Taylor over Hayes as well...but he isn't in, is he? As far as 80s WRs, I doubt we'll see ANY more of those guys in - well, Rice excepted, though he played the bulk of his career in the 90s, much like Lofton's best seasons were in the 80s. People will look at their #s and compare them to today's inflated #s and...well, that'll be about it. They just don't match up to the offensive bloat we're seeing right now. Tough break, Gary Clark and Henry Ellard. The point of the "era" in regards to WR is that there is already a great deal of representation of that time frame, while in more offensive eras with gaudier numbers, players are definitely not getting in. So, why should we consider a player some 40 years after his prime to be elite when his stature (with HOF voters, All-Pro balloters, etc.) and performance (stats, even in context) don't stack up with others who played under similar circumstances? Also, does a team that won a single super bowl in the early 70s deserve a 7th Hall of Fame player to go along with the Coach and Owner? Not underestimating the impact of Hayes, just disagree with the notion of his inclusion with the game's elite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Led the NFL in TD receptions in 1965 and 1966 (his first two seasons). Ranked #2 in receiving yardage in 1966. Otherwise, never finished in the top 3 of a WR-type category. Again, I understand the "impact" angle of his speed f'ing up the dominant paradigm of defensive philosophy, but it appears to me that the defenses caught up by his 3rd season and he became a different type of player. A good one, at times very good, for several years afterwards, but not dominant. Well, one COULD invoke the "Sayers Rule" for Hall of Fame induction. Which is usually more my case for Sayers being booted OUT but that's besides the point... The point of the "era" in regards to WR is that there is already a great deal of representation of that time frame, while in more offensive eras with gaudier numbers, players are definitely not getting in. So, why should we consider a player some 40 years after his prime to be elite when his stature (with HOF voters, All-Pro balloters, etc.) and performance (stats, even in context) don't stack up with others who played under similar circumstances? Also, does a team that won a single super bowl in the early 70s deserve a 7th Hall of Fame player to go along with the Coach and Owner? Again, Hayes' candidacy is muddled in that many HoF voters felt (feel?) that a player with a drug conviction shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. I think absent off-field issues, Hayes would've been in a long time ago. Championships are TEAM awards; I think they should only have tangential effect on the HoF candidacies of individual players - without team accomplishments, there's no WAY Swann gets in (probably not Stallworth, either - but he was as good as Swann for longer), for example...and I bet Warfield's candidacy gets a lot more dicey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Again, Hayes' candidacy is muddled in that many HoF voters felt (feel?) that a player with a drug conviction shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. I think absent off-field issues, Hayes would've been in a long time ago. I'm not going to dispute the motivations of HOF voters and whether or not that has prevented Hayes induction in the past. However, I still think there's holes in the argument that he's a HOFer, and when part of the argument gets into the intangible, I feel like it starts becoming a matter of subjective opinion that aids in failing to convince me. Again, I concur that Hayes was a unique talent. I just don't know if he was truly *that* unique a talent. And the fact I need to be swayed adds to my opinion that he probably isn't HOF caliber. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 I'm not going to dispute the motivations of HOF voters and whether or not that has prevented Hayes induction in the past. However, I still think there's holes in the argument that he's a HOFer, and when part of the argument gets into the intangible, I feel like it starts becoming a matter of subjective opinion that aids in failing to convince me. The bias against Hayes due to off-field issues has been out there for a while...that said: Again, I concur that Hayes was a unique talent. I just don't know if he was truly *that* unique a talent. And the fact I need to be swayed adds to my opinion that he probably isn't HOF caliber. ...it appears to have no bearing on YOUR assessment. Which I don't think anyone is going to sway you from, and that's fine. Agree to disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted January 12, 2009 Share Posted January 12, 2009 The bias against Hayes due to off-field issues has been out there for a while...that said: I very much cannot believe a Packer fan and a Seahawk fan are having this argument, but obviously we have a lot of spare time this weekend.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 Class of 2009 announced: Wide receiver Bob Hayes, guard Randall McDaniel, defensive end Bruce Smith, linebacker Derrick Thomas, owner Ralph Wilson, and defensive back Rod Woodson make up the Class of 2009 Pro Football Hall of Fame enshrinees. The six-man class was elected by the Pro Football Hall of Fame’s Selection Committee who met today in Tampa, Florida. The newest members of the Hall were selected from a list of 17 finalists that had been determined earlier by the committee. Smith was a lock. I guess Cris Carter and Shannon Sharpe gotta deal with the typical HOF committee bias against receivers. Nice to see Ralph Wilson make it in before he kicks the bucket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 DT DT DT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I'm not sure how a guy who retires with 3 super bowl rings and every record at his position doesn't make it in on the first ballot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I'm not sure how a guy who retires with 3 super bowl rings and every record at his position doesn't make it in on the first ballot. I don't know, maybe they didn't want to include horse's mouth with the man he degraded one Monday night that caused DT to about kill him on the field of play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I'm not sure how a guy who retires with 3 super bowl rings and every record at his position doesn't make it in on the first ballot. Yeah, that's pretty baffling. Sharpe will make it sooner rather than later. Overall a pretty good class, as far as I'm concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Richard Dent, please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.