Mr. Coles

[Higgs44]

That's an odd comment to make. We're talking about two 20-yard plays that he made about a week and a half ago, where he showed speed and got separation against double coverage that included a quality DBs.

Yet, you're insisting that he can't make those plays anymore. You're saying that things that took place in front of thousands of people could not have actually happened.

Do you realize how insane you sound?

How many Points did those TDs count toward the Regular season?

Edit: I was at that game, it was more like in front of hundreds of people!

[Higgs44]

Anyway, while we can debate the merits of certain Jets players who may or may not get into the Hall, we KNOW our coach is in. Call me crazy, but I think his evaulation of a player on his team might be considered proper context.

Whoa Whoa Whoa.....

You play to win the game...pause....you play to win, you just dont play it to play it!

[Flowtrain]

There you go again, pretending a top 10 ranking for a RB equates to a top ten ranking for a WR. You DO realize most teams only start one RB, but two WRs, don't you?

On the one hand, I do sort of like this thinking. Twice as many starting WRs means there's twice as hard to be top 10 consistently. But it's too easy to pick this apart.

First, there's the concept that looking at top 10 at your position necessarily levels the playing field for each position. So while in any given year a WR like Monk had to share catches with another starting teammate, so too did every other NFL WR trying to notch top 10 numbers.

Second, there are an awful lot of Monk's contemporaries who didn't have a problem with this. I'm talking about the Lofton and Largent types who were top 10 in yards about 8 or so times, despite the fact that teams start 2 WRs and 1 RB. And while we can argue that Monk was cursed with having good talent alongside him throughout his career, this didn't stop a tandem like the one in Pittsburgh.

Third, is the fact that the logic tends to cut both ways. Half as many starting RB jobs means there's twice as much competition to win that job in the first place, and twice as much competition to keep it. Lamont Jordan is a beast. Curtis forced him to sit. For 4 whole years.

Fourth is the fact that many teams are platooning RBs which makes achieving top 10 numbers more difficult for RBs as well. As mentioned above, Jordan threatened to cut into Martin's carries, so #28 stepped up his game. Elsewhere, guys like Faulk and Bettis gave way to younger torch bearers.

Fifth, there's the commonly understood fact that a RB's lifespan is about half that of WRs. So in making the case for a player with longevity and consistency, it's twice as impressive to do it as a RB as a WR.

The great thing for Martin, and other HOF locks, is that their numbers speak for themselves without explanation. Even in Martin's ripe age, just last year, not one RB was more productive in the NFL. As a rookie, ten long years ago, he was nearly just as good, as the NFL's 3rd most productive rusher. And halfway in between, in 99 and 00, he was right there as the 2nd leading rusher.

Simple symmetry. Beauty.

[Flowtrain]

How many Points did those TDs count toward the Regular season?

Edit: I was at that game, it was more like in front of hundreds of people!

Being that you were at the game, I'm sure it was a horrifying sight for you to see.

And although you insist that it was only witnessed by hundreds of people, you should be made aware that nowadays, games are televised to large audiences. Before, I said that you sound as though you're insane. I'm standing by that.

[Henry]

On the one hand, I do sort of like this thinking. Twice as many starting WRs means there's twice as hard to be top 10 consistently. But it's too easy to pick this apart.

First, there's the concept that looking at top 10 at your position necessarily levels the playing field for each position. So while in any given year a WR like Monk had to share catches with another starting teammate, so too did every other NFL WR trying to notch top 10 numbers.

The extremely simple to understand concept that getting into the top 10 of a field of 32 is twice as easy as getting into the top 10 of a field of 64 trumps whatever gibberish you just posted up there.

Second, there are an awful lot of Monk's contemporaries who didn't have a problem with this. I'm talking about the Lofton and Largent types who were top 10 in yards about 8 or so times, despite the fact that teams start 2 WRs and 1 RB. And while we can argue that Monk was cursed with having good talent alongside him throughout his career, this didn't stop a tandem like the one in Pittsburgh.

Really?

Swann was top ten in receptions 2 times and yardage 3 times.

Stallworh was top ten in receptions 3 times and yardage 4 times.

Monk was top ten in receptions 4 times and yardage 3 times.

Clark was top ten in receptions 4 times and yardage 5 times.

Which tandem fared better against their conteporaries? Who had a better player opposite him? Swann, Stallworth or Monk? The math is actually pretty simple here.

Third, is the fact that the logic tends to cut both ways. Half as many starting RB jobs means there's twice as much competition to win that job in the first place, and twice as much competition to keep it. Lamont Jordan is a beast. Curtis forced him to sit. For 4 whole years.

That logic might make sense if the pool of RBs coming into the league was exactly the same size as the pool of WRs. I'm not sure that's the case. But if you think Martin's Hall of Fame credentials should include the fact that he managed to keep his starting job a the age of 28, well, I've got a list of quite a few Redskins that should be locks too.

Fourth is the fact that many teams are platooning RBs which makes achieving top 10 numbers more difficult for RBs as well. As mentioned above, Jordan threatened to cut into Martin's carries, so #28 stepped up his game. Elsewhere, guys like Faulk and Bettis gave way to younger torch bearers.

Uh, if many teams are platooning their backs that would make it EASIER for a feature back to be a top ten player. (Just as it would be easier for a guy like Largent with no decent second option opposite him to rack up those oh-so-crititcal 'top ten' seasons.) Or I could just point out the existance of three and four WR sets to nip that nonsense in the bud. Ever hear of a guy named Ricky Sanders?

Fifth, there's the commonly understood fact that a RB's lifespan is about half that of WRs. So in making the case for a player with longevity and consistency, it's twice as impressive to do it as a RB as a WR.

You are talking about average career length. All that means is that since the amount of RB spots on a roster is smaller, backs that can't cut it are out of the league faster, while mediocre WR can ride the pine a little longer. For elite players, however, this fact is irrelevant.

The great thing for Martin, and other HOF locks, is that their numbers speak for themselves without explanation. Even in Martin's ripe age, just last year, not one RB was more productive in the NFL. As a rookie, ten long years ago, he was nearly just as good, as the NFL's 3rd most productive rusher. And halfway in between, in 99 and 00, he was right there as the 2nd leading rusher.

And of course, at Martins' ripe age Monk had 86 catches for 1186 yards and 8 TDs, was top ten in receptions and yardage. Two years after THAT he had 71 catches for 1049 yards and was top ten in receiving TDs, as well as a SB win in which he caught 7 passes for 113 yards. And ten years and five rule changes after his retirement, Monk is STILL top ten in catches and yardage. I agree, the numbers should speak for themselves. Sadly, some refuse to listen.

Simple symmetry. Beauty.

Indeed.

[Flowtrain]

There are a few strange comments here. Let's start with this:

But if you think Martin's Hall of Fame credentials should include the fact that he managed to keep his starting job a the age of 28, well, I've got a list of quite a few Redskins that should be locks too.

Here, I've got to pause and ask myself if we're even discussing the same player. Curtis Martin? When I referred to him as #28, it wasn't because the NFL puts your AGE on the back of your jersey. That's just a number. The man is 32 years old and wears #28.

You haven't been thinking that Mark Brunell is only 8 years old all this time. Have you?

Uh, if many teams are platooning their backs that would make it EASIER for a feature back to be a top ten player.

It's easier for a RB to notch top 10 stats when more and more teams are leaning toward platooning RBs? Not so. It means that you've got to be one of the true elite talents in order to avoid losing carries to the growing platoons. That's pretty straight forward.

For example, on most teams, Lamont Jordan is a starting RB, or at a minimum one who splits carries. Why then did he ride the bench for the last 4 years? Because Curtis has been that good, while others like Bettis and Faulk have faded.

You are talking about average career length. All that means is that since the amount of RB spots on a roster is smaller, backs that can't cut it are out of the league faster, while mediocre WR can ride the pine a little longer. For elite players, however, this fact is irrelevant.

Actually, nobody's talking about a RB getting cut or a WR riding the pine longer. What we are talking about is the relative level of physical abuse that a RB takes vs. that of a WR. We're talking about the fact that a guy like Martin will endure over 300 tackles a year, while a guy like Monk would endure about 60 or so receptions and sometime get tackled.

Huge difference. HUGE. The body can much more easily hold up to one as opposed to the other.

Irrelevent if you're elite, you say? How so? Elite RBs don't take abuse and aren't susceptible to wear and tear? Nonsense. Ask Terrell Davis or Gale Sayers. Football is a violent sport and careers have been shortened by injuries at both positions. But to pretend that 10 years of top play is achieved as easily at WR as it is at RB doesn't even pass the straight face test.

In the end, the Hall will look at Martin and Monk in vastly different lights and for good reason. Monk has turned out statistically respectable seasons in less than 1/2 his time as a pro, while Martin has done so EVERY year, not to mention being one of the league's best RBs in a handful of those occasions.

Not just longevity. Consistent quality throughout the entire lengthy career. One has it, the other doesn't. It's as simple as that.

[Clinton Portis]

Yes, it was mistake. Taking as great a cap hit as we took isn't worth Santanna Moss, even if he is better and does want to be here. Coles wasn't going to be Terrell Owens in the locker room anyway.

Some Voice of Reason.

HE WAS A CANCER.

JG doesnt like players who don't want to be part of the Redskins Way.

He and Gardner didnt buy it, they got the boot.

[FootballGuy2677]

Ok, im just gonna say im glad we made the trade cuase...

1) he didnt wanna be here

2) coles wasnt a good fit here)

3) santana is...

4) Santana dosnt look wierd.hes healthier and hes faster lol...

4) the skins seem to like him i think :cool:

:point2sky :dallasuck :point2sky

[Henry]

Here, I've got to pause and ask myself if we're even discussing the same player. Curtis Martin? When I referred to him as #28, it wasn't because the NFL puts your AGE on the back of your jersey. That's just a number. The man is 32 years old and wears #28.

You haven't been thinking that Mark Brunell is only 8 years old all this time. Have you?

He was 28 when the Jets drafted Jordan. I'm not sure what's so strange about that statement. Maybe I should have said 28-32 so you wouldn't get confused.

It's easier for a RB to notch top 10 stats when more and more teams are leaning toward platooning RBs? Not so. It means that you've got to be one of the true elite talents in order to avoid losing carries to the growing platoons. That's pretty straight forward.

Silly, silly statement. Unless the Jets run an offense that by design platoons their RBs, it doesn't matter at ALL what scheme other teams in the league may or may not be running. In fact if other teams then decide to split snaps between RBs while the Jets don't, it's EASIER for the guy on the Jets break the top ten.

For example, on most teams, Lamont Jordan is a starting RB, or at a minimum one who splits carries. Why then did he ride the bench for the last 4 years? Because Curtis has been that good, while others like Bettis and Faulk have faded.

Lamont's unproven as a starter. To claim that he's a starter 'on most teams' climbs the pinnacle of Jet homerism. Not every team is the 5-11 Raiders, the team that ranked dead last in rushing offense a year ago.

Even if you had a point here, I find it amusing that in your world the possibility that a RB might share snaps with a backup makes it tougher to break the top ten in rushing, yet the virtual guarantee that a WR will share every single snap with at least one, and sometimes two or three other WRs (lest we forget, my initial point which inspired your five point thesis) isn't a factor at all.

You basically just went out of your way to make my point for me to make some other point. So, ok I guess. You sure showed me.

Actually, nobody's talking about a RB getting cut or a WR riding the pine longer. What we are talking about is the relative level of physical abuse that a RB takes vs. that of a WR. We're talking about the fact that a guy like Martin will endure over 300 tackles a year, while a guy like Monk would endure about 60 or so receptions and sometime get tackled.

Huge difference. HUGE. The body can much more easily hold up to one as opposed to the other.

Indeed. WRs don't do anything when they don't touch the ball ... Well, I guess if your name is Randy Moss or Laveranues Coles that may be the case. But some WRs who aren't catching the ball or sometimes geting tackled on any given play do actually do stuff like block and things. And actually, Monk was one of the best at that. One of the very best.

And I'd probably guess that RBs generally don't deal with safeties blindsiding them when they go across the middle to lay out for a ball completely unprotected. Across the middle for tough yards was Monks specialty, but since that's not very glamorous this nowadays earns him the title of over-glorified TE.

Irrelevent if you're elite, you say? How so? Elite RBs don't take abuse and aren't susceptible to wear and tear? Nonsense. Ask Terrell Davis or Gale Sayers. Football is a violent sport and careers have been shortened by injuries at both positions. But to pretend that 10 years of top play is achieved as easily at WR as it is at RB doesn't even pass the straight face test.

You are the one that said "there's the commonly understood fact that a RB's lifespan is about half that of WRs. So in making the case for a player with longevity and consistency, it's twice as impressive to do it as a RB as a WR."

I think its a virtual certainty that the number of WRs who have played for 20 years does not equal the number of RBs who've played for 10, which would be the case for top players if your statement were true. If you can factually back your claim up, do so. Otherwise I'm going to have trouble reading these pearls of wisdom you're dropping with a straight face.

In the end, the Hall will look at Martin and Monk in vastly different lights and for good reason. Monk has turned out statistically respectable seasons in less than 1/2 his time as a pro, while Martin has done so EVERY year, not to mention being one of the league's best RBs in a handful of those occasions.

Not just longevity. Consistent quality throughout the entire lengthy career. One has it, the other doesn't. It's as simple as that.

Monk had an excellent run his first twelve years. In the 80s the benchmark for a successful season was 60 catches (like getting 80 catches nowadays.) From 83-91, pro-rating strike years, Monk hit that mark 8 times in 10 years. The other two years he was hurt. That is consitant quality.

Yes, his play declined during his 13th-16th seasons. Seasons, along with two injury hampered seasons, that served to bring down his averages and give ammo to guys like you. Seasons played with guys named Conklin, Peete and 400 year-old Boomer Esiason throwing him the ball. Martin hasn't even played an 11th season yet, so we'll see if he can hold off father time better than Monk. But Monk's first twelve seasons alone should warrant HOF induction. The rest SHOULD be gravy, not an excuse to talk about lack of respectable statistics.

[SirSmizzy]

The great thing for Martin, and other HOF locks, is that their numbers speak for themselves without explanation. Even in Martin's ripe age, just last year, not one RB was more productive in the NFL. As a rookie, ten long years ago, he was nearly just as good, as the NFL's 3rd most productive rusher. And halfway in between, in 99 and 00, he was right there as the 2nd leading rusher.

Simple symmetry. Beauty.

pure poetry.

[Henry]

If one of you HOF experts could explain to me why Charlie Joiner (1969-1986) is in the Hall, I'd be much obliged. Here are some excerpts from his career highlights on the HOF website:

http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.jsp?player_id=107

"Charlie Joiner played pro football for 18 years, longer than any other wide receiver in history at the time of his retirement. When he retired at the age of 39 after the 1986 season with the San Diego Chargers, he ranked as the leading receiver of all-time with 750 catches.

... During his 11 years in San Diego, Joiner caught 50 or more passes seven times and had 70 or more receptions three seasons. Injuries cut into his playing time at the beginning but, in a 193-game span over his final 13 seasons, Joiner missed only one game. He was an All-NFL pick in 1980 and a Pro Bowl choice three times."

Joiner, in 18 seasons, caught 65 TDs. He was top ten in receptions 3 times, top 10 in yardage 3 times. He was the leading receiver on his team 4 times. He never played in a SB, and doesn't have a ring. He was inducted 10 years after his retirement.

Someone please hold Joiner up to some of the criteria layed out earlier in this thread and see how he holds up.

[Flowtrain]

He was 28 when the Jets drafted Jordan. I'm not sure what's so strange about that statement. Maybe I should have said 28-32 so you wouldn't get confused.

Right... When the discussion is about an aging Martin beating out a younger, strong RB for the feature role, isn't it more relevant that he did so through his early 30s rather than late 20s? It seems the confusion is on your end.

Silly, silly statement. Unless the Jets run an offense that by design platoons their RBs, it doesn't matter at ALL what scheme other teams in the league may or may not be running.

The point is missed yet again. It's not that the Jets chose to run an offense without platooning RBs because the coaches flipped a coin. That was done by design because, despite having a back like Jordan on the roster and an NFL trend toward platooning, Curtis performed to such a high standard that it was simply too difficult to take him out of the game.

Lamont's unproven as a starter. To claim that he's a starter 'on most teams' climbs the pinnacle of Jet homerism. Not every team is the 5-11 Raiders, the team that ranked dead last in rushing offense a year ago.

It's understandable that you haven't closely followed the career of a 2nd round Jets RB who's averaged 5 YPC. That's my job. And again, the number of teams that consider LJ starter material isn't so much the issue. What is the issue is that Curtis played in every game when Jordan was here and never allowed him to see much of the field. This, as opposed to elite backs who yielded to RBs of lesser talent than Jordan.

Even if you had a point here, I find it amusing that in your world the possibility that a RB might share snaps with a backup makes it tougher to break the top ten in rushing, yet the virtual guarantee that a WR will share every single snap with at least one, isn't a factor at all.

It's amusing to you because you fail to recognize the level playing field for ALL WRs who share snaps with their co-starters. Somehow the game's great WRs rise above this inherent limitation, while Monk's supporters are left crying that starting 2 WRs is a unique rule that applied only to his career. Sure fire HOF inductees excel above the competition, without excuses.

WRs don't do anything when they don't touch the ball ... Well, I guess if your name is Randy Moss or Laveranues Coles that may be the case. But some WRs who aren't catching the ball or sometimes geting tackled on any given play do actually do stuff like block and things. And actually, Monk was one of the best at that. One of the very best.

I've got to be honest here. No amount of gushing over Art Monk's ability to block a DB will lead me to believe that a WR endures more punishment than a RB who gets gang tackled 20 times every Sunday by 250-330 pound beasts. What's next? A discussion of the trauma imposed upon unsuspecting kickers in KO coverage? RBs take more hits than WRs. Period.

In the 80s the benchmark for a successful season was 60 catches (like getting 80 catches nowadays.) From 83-91, pro-rating strike years, Monk hit that mark 8 times in 10 years. The other two years he was hurt. That is consitant quality.

Yes, his play declined during his 13th-16th seasons. Seasons, along with two injury hampered seasons, that served to bring down his averages and give ammo to guys like you. Seasons played with guys named Conklin, Peete and 400 year-old Boomer Esiason throwing him the ball.

Putting aside questions about your methodology, there's still the issue as to consistent good play vs. consistent excellence. There's no doubt that the context of Monk's work should be considered, but to what limit? That's the tough thing for you.

The Gibbs offense prevented Monk from scoring TDs.

His era prevented him from better numbers as a WR.

His role prevented him from compiling a high YPC.

His injuries brought down his average.

His co-starter WRs prevented him from being a top 10 QB in each season.

His later QBs hurt his output.

His media persona prevented him from getting attention.

His locker was too small.

It gets tiring. We can debate whether those caveats are all collectively legitimate enough to put Monk in the Hall -- but you've involved yourself in a comparative analysis with Curtis Martin. It was a bad idea for you. There are parallels between the two players (longevity, blue collar roles, understated without seeking attention) -- but despite the similarities, Curtis doesn't need caveats or qualifiers.

What was a hinderance to Monk's entry to the Hall, is turned into a signature calling card for Martin on his way to Canton.

Unlike Monk, Curtis is a lock.

[Henry]

The Gibbs offense prevented Monk from scoring TDs.

His era prevented him from better numbers as a WR.

His role prevented him from compiling a high YPC.

His injuries brought down his average.

His co-starter WRs prevented him from being a top 10 QB in each season.

His later QBs hurt his output.

His media persona prevented him from getting attention.

His locker was too small.

No. Simply, criteria for WRs is different than criteria for RBs. I've even shown you three examples of that in this very thread. I didn't think you were making excuses for Martin never holding the record for career rushing yards (or anything else for that matter) or never earning a ring. And I was not making excuses for Monk, any more than I was for Swann, Stallworth or Joiner. I was explaining why your repeated attempts to compare Martin's performance to Monk's performance based on stats is a pointless exercise. However, if you wish to continue running on this treadmill, go right ahead.

Oh, and I'd still take Gibbs' evaluation of a player over Martin's any day.

[MaddogCT]

Unlike Monk, Curtis is a lock.

Tim Brown a Hall of Famer?

:logo:

[Flowtrain]

No. Simply, criteria for WRs is different than criteria for RBs. I've even shown you three examples of that in this very thread. I was explaining why your repeated attempts to compare Martin's performance to Monk's performance based on stats is a pointless exercise. However, if you wish to continue running on this treadmill, go right ahead.

What has been done, among other things, is a comparison of how Martin stacks up statistically against his peers, relative to how Monk stacks up statistically against his peers. After all this, you turn around and say that a player at one position can't be statistically compared to a player at another position in any such context. Huh? The treadmill that you referred to has apparently resulted from your failure to provide the traction necessary in order for you to advance your position.

We know that Martin's case for the Hall is substantially stronger than Monk's. This is largely due to the fact that Martin is richer in the currency most important (for better or worse) to members of the Selection Committee: statistics, and specifically, stats relative to peers. That fact isn't undermined by any stretch just because Monk's stats are viewed against other WRs and Martin's are viewed against other RBs.

Advancing your logic, we shouldn't speculate that Rice has a better shot at the Hall than Eddie George, because comparing players stats at different positions is a "pointless exercise." The only thing that would make such an exercise pointless is if someone conducting it isn't at all interested in reaching an objective conclusion.

[Henry]

It's like talking to a brick wall.

Back to my two sentence response I made initially. WRs have more peers. Thus, you can't simply look at their peer rankings vs. those of RBs as if they were the same.

Advancing your logic, we shouldn't speculate that Rice has a better shot at the Hall than Eddie George, because Rice was only top ten in receptions and/or yardage for 11 of his 20 seasons, while George was top ten in rushes and/or yardage for 7 of his 9 seasons.

And around the treadmill goes ...

[MaddogCT]

Don't be so sure about Martin being a lock.

Just like Monk, Martin is the unassuming and "quiet" player. Monk was a lock when he was the same age as Martin and had the Stats then to back it up.

When Monk retired he held the league record for receptions, and was second in the season record. His yards and TD's were also in the top ten.

Stats, like cars, depreciate over time. At least when it comes to the HOF.

:logo:

PS: I'm not saying he doest belong, but the sports writers will point to any number of reasons to keep him out....

Also, how many of Art's games have you seen?

[Flowtrain]

Back to my two sentence response I made initially. WRs have more peers. Thus, you can't simply look at their peer rankings vs. those of RBs as if they were the same.

Advancing your logic, we shouldn't speculate that Rice has a better shot at the Hall than Eddie George, because Rice was only top ten in receptions and/or yardage for 11 of his 20 seasons, while George was top ten in rushes and/or yardage for 7 of his 9 seasons.

I would think that you'd be better at the peer analysis with all this new practice. The way it would work is to say: Rice has a better shot than George because JR was TOP 3 among peer WRs in either yards or TDs a combined 19 times, as compared to a paltry combined 2 times among peer RBs for George. 19 to 2.

See that? That's how you make a landslide case for Rice against George by comparing each to their peers. Of course, you could also add additional imformation that you feel is so vital, like Rice having more peers than George and Rice sharing receptions with other WRs. But as it should be with a HOF LOCK, people would just snicker at the relative unimportance of those observations.

[Henry]

Flow, if you've got to pull up arguably the Greatest Player in the History of the NFL, a WR whose ahead of the next guy by 450 receptions, 8000 yards and 67 TDs, and even then when HE doesn't work using your original logic have to further alter your criteria to make a case, you're grasping. Martin, who you claim is a lock himself, cannot hold up under that above comparison either. I think the numbers are 19-6 in that scenerio. Maybe he ain't such a LOCK after all.

Or maybe you are simply plucking an abherration out and holding it up as the standard. I expect better from you.

Using those standards, Chris Carter (second among WRs in receptions and TDs) loses this comparison 19-2. Third is Tim Brown who loses 19-1. Fourth is Andre Reed who loses 19-0.

Emmit Smith is top on the RB list in both yards and TDs. He loses this comparison 19-10. Then is Walter Payton, who loses 19-12. Then Barry Sanders, who loses 19-11. Then Martin, the virtual lock, who as I said loses 19-6.

Are these other top WRs comparable to Eddie George now? Do you not see how rankings favor RBs? Or should we again change the criteria to fit your rationalizations?

[Flowtrain]

I used the more stringent top 3 standard for Rice simply because it clearly shows his dominance against peers. This bothered you. You got confused and upset when we stray from the original top 10 standard. Let's not do that anymore.

Using the original single category top 10 analysis with Rice and George -- surprise! -- it still works. 12 to 5 in yards and 12 to 4 in TDs. Of course it also works using the other WRs too. Those Largent, Lofton, Carter, Brown types -- no problem -- they also notched numerous top 10 seasons in their areas of expertise. Despite all the supposed prejudices of this system against the WR (more peers and what not), funny how the cream still manages to rise to the top. What about the modern guys -- Owens, Harrison, Moss, etc. Yup, them too. Try it, it's fun.

Don't try it with Monk though. It's not so fun.

Again, Martin (and the slew of WRs we mentioned) consistently stood out among peers, while Monk did so with less frequency. There's not much way around this for you, other than to accept it, move on, and hope that Monk's other attributes can help pick up part of the slack. There's no shame in being farther from Canton than Curtis Martin. That is, unless you bury your head in the sand while denying the obvious truth.

[Henry]

You know, there is this important little stat you keep conveniently ignoring that's kinda important for WRs. I like to call it 'receptions' ...

You know what? Forget it. These areas have all been addressed numerous times. While I am highly impressed with the lengths with which you will go and the circles around which you are willing to run to tear down our guy in order to prop up one of your own, that's about all I'm impressed with.

I knew if I just arbitrarily picked and compared the top four all time leaders of each position using YOUR criteria you'd find a way to dance around it. Sure enough, you completely changed your standards, again, once they no longer supported your position. Frankly, I'm sick of that dance. Someday, when I quit my job I'll go through all the records and average out all the HOFer's top ten appearances in various catgories and then top three appearances, and maybe the top five. What the hey, maybe I'll even throw in the top eight just to be sociable. And then we'll know for sure who REALLY deserves to be there.

But frankly, I don't care THAT much about your pseronal love of Curtis Martin to waste that kind of time.

And some day, I might just find out what the hell Charlie Joiner is doing in Canton.

[Flowtrain]

Receptions? What's that. Isn't that what Coles did 90 times to everyone's dismay? (Incidentally, top 7 in the NFL, despite dreaded peer competition)

Anyway, it's tough to imagine that anyone really thinks that the Hall won't view Martin's resume more favorably than Monk. The crux here is that Monk is eligible but still NOT in the Hall. He's not there for well documented reasons -- shortcomings (such as performance vs peers) that Martin has actually turned into a stregth and trademark.

Now, it's unfortunate for Monk and his fans that the Committee values those reasons. But those are the circumstances as we know them.

On an unrelated note, here's an analysis on Andre Reed's HOF qualification from someone who apparently has the kind of time that you referenced above.

http://www.footballresearch.com/articles/frpage.cfm?topic=reedhof

Andre Reed and the Hall of Fame

A Way of Evaluating Pass Receivers

By Keith Joyner

The Coffin Corner Volume XIX

I was watching a Denver-Buffalo Monday Night Football game about three years ago and heard something that made my ears perk up. After Andre Reed made a catch for a first down, Dan Dierdorf said that most people would be amazed to find out that Reed had 600 pass receptions, and he suggested that with that number of catches, Reed was probably headed for the Hall of Fame. I have to admit that I was surprised that Andre Reed had that many receptions. The Hall of Fame comment took me by surprise as well. I had never considered Andre Reed a potential Hall of Fame candidate, so I decided to examine the issue further.

In reviewing Andre Reed's Hall of Fame qualifications, I always come back to Bill James. Ever since I was a teenager, I have been reading James' baseball books, and a constant theme in his books is perspective. Anytime he reviews a player, team, or era, he always tries to maintain historical perspective. In reviewing a ballplayer, he will try to view the player's accomplishments in relation to the other players of the era. If many ballplayers hit .350 (as happened during the 1920's) hitting .350 isn't as significant an accomplishment as hitting .350 in an era where no one else does (as happened in the 60's) One of the first issues I thought I had to face in determining whether or not Andre Reed's stats were of Hall of Fame caliber was the issue of perspective.

Andre Reed at the time had 600 receptions. He now has 766, but you have to ask yourself: Do 766 receptions, made during an era where more receivers are catching more passes than ever, qualify Andre Reed for Canton?

Since the advent of the ball control pass offense, reception totals have increased steadily almost yearly. More receivers are catching more passes than at any other time in history. In 1965, Johnny Morris led the league with 93 receptions, which was 28 receptions more than his nearest competitor. In 1995, 10 receivers had more than 93 receptions. While 1995 may seem an extreme example, it is illustrative of the sheer volume of receptions being made in this era. If we are to measure Andre Reed's career accomplishments, we cannot simply line them up against receivers from the 70's and say "OK, Andre Reed caught more career passes than Harold Jackson, therefore he must have had a better career." Instead, we need to measure Reed's accomplishments against his contemporaries, measure receivers from other eras against their's, and then compare the two.

In attempting to create a system to measure receivers, I wanted it to meet a few criteria. First, the system was to measure wide receivers only, not tight ends or running backs. In addition, I wanted a system that accounted for all receivers in a year, not just the top receivers. I also didn't want to only measure receptions. Yardage is just as important, and needs to be included in an overall measurement of a receiver's worth. This is the system: Take all the receivers for the league for a year, add up their receptions, and divide that number by the number of teams in the league. This number represents the average number of catches per team. Then take a receiver from that year and divide his receptions by the average number of catches per team that year, and multiply that by 100 for ease of measurement. For example, in his rookie season of 1985, Andre Reed caught 48 passes. The average for a team that year was 128.2 receptions, so 48/128.2= .374 x 100=37.4. This is the number of reception points Reed gets for that year. I did the same process for yardage. I measured all of the top receivers for every year, and compiled career totals for 166 receivers.

What this system of measurement does is place weights on each season so that a receiver's accomplishments are kept in perspective. A Hall of Fame receiver should set a certain standard of excellence that other receivers do not reach, or, failing that, he should maintain a certain level of excellence for substantially longer than his contemporaries. With this system, a receiver can be measured not only versus his contemporaries, but also against receivers from other eras.

Having presented the overall statistical measure of Andre Reed's career versus other receivers, we should also review these statistics in closer detail. One could reasonably argue that there is more to a Hall of Fame candidate than his statistics, and that there are other issues that should be considered. I would agree, and with all due credit to Bill James, I will use the statistical measurements in conjunction with what he calls The Keltner List. The Keltner list is a series of questions that James used to help him determine whether a player is of Hall of Fame caliber (the list was originally designed to help determine if a baseball player named Ken Keltner belonged in the Hall of Fame). With some modifications, it is an excellent vehicle to measure Andre Reed's qualifications for Hall of Fame status. The questions are.

Was he ever regarded as the best player in football?

Was he the best player on his team?

Was he the best player in his conference at his position?

Was he the best player in football at his position?

Did he have an impact in any playoff or playoff caliber games?

If he retired today, would he be the best player in football not in the Hall of Fame?

Are most players at his position with comparable stats in the Hall of Fame?

If he retired today, would he be the best player at his position not in the Hall of Fame?

How many All-Pro type seasons did he have? How many Pro Bowls did he play in? Did most other players at his position who made the Hall of Fame play in a comparable amount of games or have a comparable amount of All-Pro or Pro Bowl seasons?

Did the player possess any other qualities which would not be measured by his statistics?

Let's examine Andre Reed.

1) Was he ever regarded as the best player in football?

This is a very high standard, to be sure, but no, I don't think anyone has ever suggested it.

2) Was he the best player on his team?

Andre Reed would be considered one of the best players on his team, but I don't think he would be considered the best. Bruce Smith is thought to be one of the finest defensive linemen of all time, Thurman Thomas is one of the two or three best running backs of his era, and Jim Kelly was one of the best quarterbacks in football. Andre would probably have to be ranked fourth by this measurement.

3) Was he the best player in his conference at his position?

4) Was he the best player in football at his position?

I decided to answer these questions concurrently. Andre Reed has never been considered the best receiver of his era, what with competing directly with Jerry Rice. To decide the race for second best receiver of this era, I decided to look at the All-Pro teams. The Professional Football Writers Association of America and the Associated Press vote for All-Pro teams every year. These teams are supposed to represent the best players at their position. Two wide receivers are named on each team. Jerry Rice, whose career started at the same time as Reed's did, has been named All-Pro in every year except two. This leaves only one All-Pro slot per year for most of the years that Reed played in. Andre Reed has only been voted to an All-Pro team once, during the 1989 season.

The best receivers of Reed's era (1985-1997) are generally considered to be Rice, Michael Irvin, Sterling Sharpe, Andre Rison, Mark Clayton, Mark Duper, Tim Brown, Art Monk, Steve Largent, Cris Carter, Herman Moore, and Reed himself With the exceptions of Largent, Duper, Clayton, Brown, and Reed, all of these receivers are NFC receivers, and most of these receivers were the All-Pro receivers during Reed's career As such, it would seem that the NFC had the better receivers. That being the case, you could probably make an argument for Reed being the AFC's best receiver of that era. With Duper, Clayton, Brown, Largent, Haywood Jeffires, Ernest Givins, and Anthony Miller as his chief competition, you would probably find that Reed ranks as good, or better, year in and year out. He was voted as the AFC Pro Bowl starter four times and voted in as a backup three other times in his 13 seasons, and no one else in the conference comes close to that. For the honor of the best receiver in the AFC over the last 13 seasons, Andre Reed gets my vote.

5) Did he have an impact on any playoff or playoff caliber games?

Andre Reed made a number of large contributions in big games for the Bills. He was an integral part of Buffalo's comeback vs. Houston in the 1994 AFC Wildcard game. He caught two touchdown passes in a 1991 AFC Divisional playoff game against the Chiefs. He also had a big game against Miami during the 1995 season that helped clinch a playoff spot for the Bills. The overriding memories I have of Andre Reed in the postseason, though, are in Super Bowls XXV and XXVI. In Super Bowl XXVI, Reed disagreed with an official's call, got mad, and tossed his helmet down in anger. This was pointed out to the official by one of the Redskins' players, and it cost Buffalo a 15-yard penalty. The penalty knocked the Bills out of field goal range at a point in the game where a field goal could have helped swing the momentum toward the Bills.

In Super Bowl XXV, the Giants defensive game plan was to stop the big play, and force the Bills offense to put together a drive in order to score. They were very successful in achieving this. The Bills that year had James Lofton as their deep threat. Lofton's repertoire of pass patterns consisted of a go pattern and a deep out. The Giants took away the deep out pattern all game, and the Bills hit the go pattern successfully only once. On that play Lofton was covered, but the defender was only able to knock the ball into the air, where Lofton caught it on a rebound.

Lofton finished with one catch for 61 yards. This left two other options in the Bills receiving corps. Andre Reed and Keith McKeller, the Bills tight end. McKeIler was a pedestrian receiver, so therefore Reed had to be the focal point of the Bills passing game. Through the first quarter and part of the second, Reed performed admirably, catching passes over the middle and keeping the Bills drives alive. In the second quarter, Reed caught a pass on a crossing route. He evaded one tackler, then was nailed by another. Reed struggled to his feet, and after the game said he had never been hit harder. It showed. Reed was still the focal point of the passing game, but he dropped three key passes throughout the rest of the game, two on 3rd down when the Bills needed the catch to keep the drive alive. He short armed balls in order to protect his ribs from the Giant defenders. It is my feeling that when the Bills offense needed him the most, Andre Reed, the man who once appeared in a magazine ad stating "You're going to get hit either way, so you might as well catch the ball," did not do so. The Bills offense refocused its attack with Thurman Thomas at the center, but was unable to overcome the loss of their entire passing attack, and lost 20-19.

6) If he retired today, would he be the best player in football not in the Hall of Fame?

By my estimation, there are many players who were held in higher esteem during their era than Andre Reed is held in his. Dwight Stevenson was the Gale Sayers of offensive linemen, a man who only played six years but made such an impact that he is considered one of the best linemen ever. Ray Guy was the best punter ever, with the possible exception of Sammy Baugh, and is the only pure punter to ever garner any serious Hall of Fame consideration. Mick Tingelhoff was voted All-Pro for seven straight years in the 60's, five of which were unanimous selections. Del Shofner was voted All-Pro unanimously five times in six years. Benny Friedman was the best passer of the 20's and has been kept out of the Hall due to issues other than on field accomplishments. All of these players were considered to be by far the best at their positions at some point during their careers. Andre Reed has not been considered to be the best during his career, and as such would not rank ahead of any of these men.

7) Are most players with comparable stats at his position in the Hall of Fame?

Andre Reed's career total for reception and yardage points is 1009. He is thus currently tied for 27th all time. This places him in the company of receivers such as Haven Moses, John Stallworth, Reggie Rucker, Wes Chandler, and Ken Burrough, with whom he is tied. It puts him just ahead of Elroy Hirsch, John Gilliam, Carroll Dale, Gene Washington, and Dante Lavelli. Of all of the receivers just mentioned, only Hirsch and Lavelli are in the Hall of Fame, and one could argue that they were inducted more for being one of the great receivers of their eras than for their career totals.

My next thought was that it was entirely possible that I was comparing apples to oranges. In order to obtain a more accurate assessment of his productivity, shouldn't he be measured against the same type of receiver? One of the first things that I noticed after compiling the list was the large amount of deep threat receivers on the list (24 out of the top 53 are pure deep threats, and another nine are considered combination/deep threats). This illustrates the fact that teams have always placed a premium on yardage as opposed to catches. In other words, if a receiver can catch the ball, great, but that receiver will always lose his job to a receiver who can get the ball deep, even if the deep threat cannot catch as well as the possession receiver. This is probably because coaches feel they can always teach a deep threat receiver how to catch the ball, but they will never be able to teach the possession receiver to get open deep. Or, as John Madden so eloquently puts it: "Speed kills. You can't coach it. You can't teach it. You better draft it."

Unless you are a great possession receiver, your career will probably not last long, as coaches will always be looking to replace you. If you are a great possession receiver, you will, barring injury, play for a long time, which raises the bar for all career totals for possession receivers. Andre Reed has been a possession receiver for most of his career (although he has served as a more of a deep threat for the past three years). The next step I took was to divide the career productivity list into three categories of receivers: Possession, deep threat, and combination.

I originally decided to place Reed into the combination list due to the change in his role from a possession receiver to a deep threat in the Buffalo offense the past few years. He ranks I2th on the all time list of combination receivers. There are five Hall of Famers in the combination receivers list. Reed ranks ahead of Dante Lavelli, Bobby Mitchell, and Wayne MilIner, and ranks behind Hutson and Largent. He is also well behind another bonafide Hall of Famer, Jerry Rice. One could reasonably argue that Lavelli, Mitchell, and Miliner did not make the Hall of Fame based on their career stats (one would be hard pressed to argue any reason MilIner should be in the Hall), so that doesn't help Reed's case.

The receivers who were inducted in the Hall of Fame based on career stats were mostly the pure possession receivers. if you place Reed on the possession list, he would be in 6th place,just two points behind Ahmad Rashad. He would, however, be well behind the four receivers on the possession list who are in the Hall: Charley Taylor, Charlie Joiner, Raymond Berry, and Fred Biletnikoff. He is also well behind Art Monk, who will probably be inducted soon after he is eligible. Based on this, we can say that most receivers with Reed's stats are not in the Hall.

8) If he retired today, would he be the best player at his position not in the Hall of Fame?

If you measure this according to career productivity, the answer is an emphatic no. There is more to assessing greatness than career totals, however, so I devised another system of measurement to help answer this question. The system gives one point for every All-Pro season, another .25 points if it was a unanimous All-Pro season. I also gave each receiver one point for every Pro Bowl season, and another .25 for every Pro Bowl game he started.

Andre Reed ranks very high in the Pro Bowl list, placing 6thall time. He doesn't do nearly as well in the All Pro list, ranking tied for 66th (although in all fairness, if his All-Pro vote had been unanimous, he would be tied for 42nd), In any event, I think this does more to illustrate the strength and weakness of Andre Reed's Hall of Fame credentials as anything. Andre Reed ranks as high as he does in the Pro Bowl rankings because he plays in the AFC. It could very easily be said that if Reed played for an NFC team for the past 13 years, he would make maybe half as many Pro Bowls as he did.

That being said, there we many other choices for the honor of best receiver not in the Hall that are better than Andre Reed. Del Shofner was a unanimous All-Pro selection five times in his career, and to my thinking, his absence from the Hall is a glaring one. Cliff Branch was named All-Pro four times, twice unanimously, and ranks ahead of Reed on the career production list. He also performed very well in two Super Bowls. James Lofton, who is not yet eligible, had four All-Pro selections, and is also well ahead of Reed on career points. I think that a good argument could be made for Billy Wilson or Tommy McDonald being very competitive with Reed in many career categories. I also have to wonder how well Reed's accomplishments will look against his contemporaries once all of their careers have ended. Michael Irvin, Anthony Miller, Herman Moore, and even Andre Rison (if he can get his career back in order) may equal or surpass Reed's totals when all is said and done.

10) Did the player possess any other qualities which would not be measured by his statistics?

Being that I do not know the man personally, I hesitate to say this, but it seems to me that Andre Reed is not exactly a calming influence on his teammates. He has had more than one instance of being involved in locker room disputes, threw the on- the-field tantrum in Super Bowl XXVI, and had a nasty contract holdout last summer. On the plus side, he has been very durable, and willingly made the shift from a possession receiver to a deep threat.

In the final analysis, the question you have to answer is this: Do you induct a receiver who is consistently good, but never really great into the Hall of Fame? When I first started doing the research for this article, I honestly thought that Andre Reed's accomplishments would fall short of serious Hall of Fame consideration. Regardless of what era it occurred in, 766 receptions are still 766 receptions, though, and that is a considerable total. The strength of the argument for Reed is that he has performed year in and year out at a high level for a length of time that few others have. The weakness of that argument is that the few others that have performed at that level for a great length of time, did so for much longer than Andre Reed has.

Unless the player is among the all time greats, it is very difficult to measure his worthiness for Hall of Fame status while he is still active. That being said, if Andre Reed retired today, I do not feel he is a Hall of Fame level receiver I spoke earlier of how the bar for all possession receivers has been raised because a possession receiver has to be a great possession receiver to stay in the league. That bar is quite high and if Reed is to be proclaimed the equal of the likes of Fred Biletnikoff, Charlie Joiner, Raymond Berry, and Art Monk, the receivers he most resembles, he needs to jump over that bar. Andre Reed currently averages approximately 80-90 reception points per season. At that pace, he is approximately 3-4 seasons from clearing that height. When he does, I would be happy to support his nomination.

THE TOP 50 (as of the beginning of the 1997 season)

Based on total receiving points

RECEIVER TP CAREER YR GM PPG TOTAL PC YARD AVG TD ALL-P PRO-B

1 DON HUTSON CM 1935-45 11 116 17.586 2040 488 7991 16.4 99 11.25 4.25

2 CHARLIE JOINER PO 1969-86 18 239 6.389 1527 750 12146 16.2 65 1.00 3.00

3 STEVE LARGENT CM 1976-89 14 200 7.415 1483 819 13089 16.0 100 2.00 6.50

4 Jerry Rice CM 1985-96 12 188 7.628 1434 1050 16377 15.6 154 11.25 12.50

5 Harold Jackson DT 1968-83 16 208 6.673 1388 579 10372 17.9 76 1.25 5.25

6 CHARLEY TAYLOR PO 1964-77 13 165 8.333 1375 649 9110 14.0 79 1.25 8.75

7 James Lofton DT 1978-93 16 233 5.854 1364 764 14004 18.3 75 4.25 9.25

8 DON MAYNARD DT 1958-73 15 186 7.177 1335 633 11834 18.7 88 1.00 4.50

9 Art Monk PO 1980-95 16 224 5.938 1330 940 12721 13.5 68 1.00 3.25

10 FRED BILETNIKOFF PO 1965-78 14 190 6.958 1322 589 8974 15.2 76 2.00 6.50

11 Harold Carmichael CM 1971-84 14 182 7.110 1294 590 8985 15.2 79 1.00 4.75

12 RAYMOND BERRY PO 1955-67 13 154 7.915 1219 631 9275 14.7 68 3.75 6.25

13 LANCE ALWORTH DT 1962-72 11 136 8.419 1145 542 10266 18.9 85 8.50 8.50

14 Cliff Branch DT 1972-85 14 183 6.186 1132 501 8685 17.3 67 4.50 4.50

15 Henry Ellard DT 1983-96 14 205 5.468 1121 775 13177 17.0 61 1.25 2.00

16 Billy Howton CO 1952-63 12 142 7.831 1112 503 8459 16.8 61 2.50 4.75

17 PAUL WARFIELD DT 1964-77 13 157 7.006 1100 427 8565 20.1 85 5.25 9.00

18 Jim Benton CM 1938-47 9 91 11.934 1086 288 4801 16.7 45 2.25 1.00

19 Drew Pearson CM 1973-83 11 156 6.949 1084 489 7822 16.0 48 3.25 3.75

20 Stanley Morgan DT 1977-90 14 196 5.459 1070 557 10716 19.2 92 1.00 3.25

21 Roy Jefferson CM 1965-76 12 162 6.580 1066 451 7539 16.7 52 2.50 4.50

22 Haven Moses CM 1968-81 14 199 5.266 1048 448 8091 18.1 56 0.00 2.00

23 John Stallworth CM 1974-87 14 165 6.224 1027 537 8723 16.2 63 1.25 4.50

24 Reggie Rucker CM 1970-81 12 159 6.409 1019 447 7065 15.8 44 0.00 0.00

25 Wes Chandler DT 1978-88 11 150 6.773 1016 559 8966 16.0 56 1.25 4.25

26 Ahmad Rashad PO 1972-82 10 139 7.273 1011 495 6831 13.8 44 0.00 4.50

27 Andre Reed CM 1985-96 12 175 5.766 1009 766 10884 14.2 75 1.00 8.00

28 Ken Burrough DT 1970-81 12 156 6.468 1009 421 7102 16.9 49 0.00 2.00

29 ELROY HIRSCH DT 1946-57 12 127 8.114 998 387 7029 18.2 66 2.25 3.75

30 John Gilliam DT 1967-77 11 151 6.550 989 382 7056 18.5 48 1.00 4.50

31 Carroll Dale DT 1960-73 14 189 5.228 988 438 8277 18.9 52 0.00 3.25

32 Gene Washington CM 1969-79 10 140 6.464 985 385 6856 17.8 60 2.25 4.75

33 DANTE LAVELLI CM 1946-56 11 123 8.000 984 386 6488 16.8 62 2.00 3.75

34 Gary Clark DT 1985-95 11 167 5.886 983 699 10856 15.5 65 1.00 4.25

35 Tommy McDonald CM 1957-68 12 152 5.928 981 495 8410 17.0 84 0.00 7.25

36 Gary Garrison DT 1966-77 12 134 7.299 978 405 7538 18.6 58 0.00 4.25

37 Nat Moore CM 1974-86 13 183 5.339 977 510 7546 14.8 74 1.00 1.25

38 BOBBY MITCHELL CM 1958-68 11 148 6.534 967 521 7954 15.3 65 3.25 4.50

39 Otis Taylor DT 1965-75 11 130 7.431 966 410 7306 17.8 57 3.25 3.25

40 Isaac Curtis DT 1973-84 12 167 5.659 945 416 7101 17.1 53 2.00 5.00

41 Drew Hill CM 1979-93 15 211 4.398 928 634 9831 15.5 60 0.00 2.00

42 Bob Hayes DT 1965-75 11 132 6.917 913 371 7414 20.0 71 2.00 3.50

43 Boyd Dowler CM 1959-71 12 162 5.617 910 474 7270 15.3 40 0.00 2.25

44 Lionel Taylor PO 1959-68 10 121 7.512 909 567 7195 12.7 45 3.75 3.50

45 Billy Wilson CM 1951-60 10 100 9.000 900 407 5902 14.5 49 2.25 7.25

46 Mac Speedie DT 1946-52 7 86 10.395 894 349 5602 16.1 33 2.00 1.00

47 Pete Retzlaff CM 1956-66 11 132 6.727 888 452 7412 16.4 47 1.25 6.00

48 TOM FEARS DT 1948-56 9 87 10.195 887 400 5397 13.5 38 2.50 1.25

49 Roy Green CM 1979-92 14 190 4.658 886 559 8965 16.0 66 2.50 2.25

50 Wesley Walker DT 1977-89 13 154 5.740 884 438 8306 19.0 71 1.25 2.25

Hall of Famers in CAPS

[Henry]

Interesting article Flow. I do plan to read it when I have the time.

As far as Coles goes (since he's the reason this thread was started) I think the knock on him was not that he made 90 10-yard catches, but that he was unhappy doing it. He wanted the role of downfield burner, and sadly since The Toe, that's not been him.

Personally, I still think he's a heck of a player. And if he's happy averaging 10 yards a catch in NY he should do ok, though I do think it's amusing that Coles is so much happier with his role in NY when thus far he's been basically filling the same role there that he filled here.

But ultimately I'm ok with our guys and you are ok with your guys so who really cares.

[Zab Judah]

First of all the problem is not Coles.. It's Pennington. However Pennington loves Coles, and throws it to him more then anyone. Coles could have 100 receptions this year(at 8 yds per catch lmfao)