Hall of Fame Breakdown

[The Gipper]

Here is a breakdown via years eligible of the recent HOF selections (and non selections)

 

Brett Favre is the only one that was selected in his first year eligible.

 

Orlando Pace was selected in his second time as a finalist.

 

Tony Dungy, Marvin Harrison, and Dick Stanfel on their third time as finalists.

.....but note Stanfel's other times as finalists were many years ago...in fact, he was a Senior Committee finalist in 1993 and did not make it then. Now he is in.

 

Eddie DeBartolo and Ken Stabler were inducted in their 4th time as finalists.

....but note also, Stabler was Senior committee selection. The last time he was a regular finalist was 2003.

 

Kevin Greene was in his 5th time as a Finalist and is now in. He was a finalist most times among all the finalists.

 

Players/coaches that were finalist this year that did not get in and the number of times they have been finalists:

 

1 time: Alan Faneca, Terrelle Owens, Joe Jacoby, Edgerinn James, Steve Atwater

 

2 times: Kurt Warner, Terrell Davis

 

3 times: Morten Andersen, Don Coryell, John Lynch.

 

Here is a list of other people who have been HOF Finalists over the years, and the number of times they have been Finalist....but who have not been elected. Some of these could possibly come up again as finalist....and/or as Senior Committe nominees. As noted Dick Stanfel had not been on the HOF finals list since 1993....yet, here his is.....elected.

 

Jimmy Johnson (coach) 1 time

Roger Craig 1 time

Bob Keuchenberg 8 times

Paul Tagliabue 3 times (contributor)

Marshall Goldberg 2 times

Randy Gradishar 2 times

Fred Dean 1 time

Art Modell 2 times (contributor)

LC Greenwood 6 times

George Young 3 times (contributor)

Cliff Harris 1 time

Lester Hayes 4 times

Donnie Shell 1 time

Ken Anderson 2 times

Jerry Kramer 10 times

Willie Gallimore 1 time

Lee Roy Jordan 1 time

Lou Rymkus 1 time (Browns player)

Blanton Collier (coach) 1 time Browns coach

Johnny Robinson 6 times

Mac Speedie 3 times Browns player

Jim Tyrer 1 time

Charlie Conerly 7 times

Gene "Big Daddy" Lipscomb 2 times

Clark Shaughnessy 3 times

Rosey Grier 1 time

Ole Haugsrud 1 time

Tony Morabito 1 time

Duke Slater 2 times

Beattie Feathers 1 time

 

Of those not in, who do you all think could make it eventually from these lists?

 

 

[The Gipper]

First time eligibles next year:

 

2017

LaDanian Tomlinson

Brian Dawkins

Jason Taylor

Brian Waters

Donovan McNabb

Hines Ward

Ricky Williams

 

2018

Ray Lewis

Randy Moss

Steve Hutchinson

Brian Urlacher

Donald Driver

Jeff Saturday

[The Gipper]

Here is another category of discussion re the Hall of Fame: Why Dungy (other than race) over these guys:

 

Marty Schottenheimer 200 wins 13 years in playoffs (but only 5-13 in postseason) no titles

 

Dan Reeves 190 wins 4 Super Bowl appearances, all losses 11-9 in postseason

 

Chuck Knox 186 wins 7-11 in postseason

 

Mike Holmgren 161 wins. 1 Super Bowl win, 2 SB losses 13-11 in postseason

 

Bill Cowher 149 wins. 1 Super Bowl win 1 Super Bowl loss 12-9 in postseason

 

Dungy 139 wins 1 Super Bowl win 9-10 in postseason

 

And there is these guys, all each with 2 championships under their belt:

George Seifert

Mike Shanahan

Jimmy Johnson

Tom Flores

Lou Saban

Buddy Parker

 

Note: Only coach with 3 or more Championships under his belt not in HOF: Bill Belichick...still active.

[One Post]

I don't see any first timers next year getting in. LT would be the best bet if any.

[The Gipper]

I don't see any first timers next year getting in. LT would be the best bet if any.

Yea, I think Tomlinson is sure fire first year HOF. And LT is Lawrence Taylor. LDT is Tomlinson.

[One Post]

Yea, I think Tomlinson is sure fire first year HOF. And LT is Lawrence Taylor. LDT is Tomlinson.

I know. Just tired today buddy.

[Axe]

I am a Bucs fan, and don't think Dungy belongs..

 

Did he turn the Bucs around? Yes! He also cost them 4-5 Super Bowl appearances due to being so hard headed....

 

Peyton drug him kicking and screaming to his only Lombardi. Tom Flores HAS to be saying WTF?

[Richiswhere]

Joe Thomas should be in, NOW. No offensive lineman has ever had as much impact on the NFL as Joe Thomas.

 

Before Joe Thomas came here, the Browns were a perennial 4 - 12 team. Now that this lard ass has been here 9 years, the Browns have blossomed into a perennial 4 - 12 team. But wait, there's more. Before JT we had no 3,000 yard passers, BUT once he got here, we improved to ZERO 3,000 yard passers. Wait for it, it gets better. Before Joe Lardass, we had no 1, 000 yard rushers, but with Joe leading the sweep, the Browns have had NINE CONSECUTIVE years of no 1,000 yard rushers. That's NINE fucking years in a row.

 

Send this cocksucker right to the HOF, his eligiility has already been met he is so fucking good.

 

HOF HOF HOF c'mon dickheads, cheer with me.

LOL the "White" Al Sharpton has spoken

[gftChris]

Aww, I thought this was going to be a long list of all of the things Johnny has been through in his nervous breakdown.

[gftChris]

 

 

Before JT we had no 3,000 yard passers, BUT once he got here, we improved to ZERO 3,000 yard passers

 

2014 - Hoyer - 3326 yards

2012 - Weeden - 3385 yards

2007 - Anderson - 3787 yards

 

Team totals have been below 3000 twice ('08 and '11) since JT was drafted.

 

So, there's that.

[Mudfly]

 

Team totals have been below 3000 twice ('08 and '11) since JT was drafted.

 

So, there's that.

actually, just once.....3300 in 2011

[Bob806]

I think it was tragic that Stabler didn't get in before he died. Truly one of the greats of the 70s.

 

I also don't get why Clay Matthews isn't in, and Kevin Greene got it. Matthews, 18 seasons and was versatile and productive, while Kevin Greene played as mainly an edge rusher, piled up a bunch of sacks.

[hoorta]

Joe Thomas should be in, NOW. No offensive lineman has ever had as much impact on the NFL as Joe Thomas.

 

Before Joe Thomas came here, the Browns were a perennial 4 - 12 team. Now that this lard ass has been here 9 years, the Browns have blossomed into a perennial 4 - 12 team. But wait, there's more. Before JT we had no 3,000 yard passers, BUT once he got here, we improved to ZERO 3,000 yard passers. Wait for it, it gets better. Before Joe Lardass, we had no 1, 000 yard rushers, but with Joe leading the sweep, the Browns have had NINE CONSECUTIVE years of no 1,000 yard rushers. That's NINE fucking years in a row.

 

Send this cocksucker right to the HOF, his eligiility has already been met he is so fucking good.

 

HOF HOF HOF c'mon dickheads, cheer with me.

 

 

 

You're right about HOF for Joe, but I told you once already- short attention span doopa head. Not only WRONG about 3,000 yard passers, but regarding Browns 1,000 yard rushers. Jamal Lewis 2007, 2008. Peyton Hillis 2010. check your facts before you troll.

 

And in case you didn't know it- pro football reference has Joe in the top 100 players of all time regardless of position since 1950. (Peyton Manning is #1)

[The Gipper]

I think it was tragic that Stabler didn't get in before he died. Truly one of the greats of the 70s.

 

I also don't get why Clay Matthews isn't in, and Kevin Greene got it. Matthews, 18 seasons and was versatile and productive, while Kevin Greene played as mainly an edge rusher, piled up a bunch of sacks.

Those sacks are the only thing. In actuality, their careers were similar. They were equal in PFRs production average.

Greene had a 95, Matthews a 94. Greene only made 669 tackles in his career, but had 160 sacks. 24% of his total tackles were sacks. That is pretty much all he did.

Compare: Clay had 1561 tackles.....almost 3 times as many as Greene.....but he had 69.5 sacks.

Fair to say that Green basically did one thing...rush the passer, where Clay rushed the passer, stopped the run, and covered receivers.

The CA numbers must be skewed toward sacks.

[Mudfly]

Those sacks are the only thing. In actuality, their careers were similar. They were equal in PFRs production average.

Greene had a 95, Matthews a 94. Greene only made 669 tackles in his career, but had 160 sacks. 24% of his total tackles were sacks. That is pretty much all he did.

Compare: Clay had 1561 tackles.....almost 3 times as many as Greene.....but he had 69.5 sacks.

Fair to say that Green basically did one thing...rush the passer, where Clay rushed the passer, stopped the run, and covered receivers.

The CA numbers must be skewed toward sacks.

1561 is a LOT of tackles too(3rd most ALL TIME in the NFL).....esp compared to 670....Id add that they didnt start keeping sack totals until well after Clay was in the league., so he got screwed out of several years production(still wouldnt be near Greenes total, but getting in on sacks alone doesnt seem right either).....

 

Homer view or not, in my book, Mathews is a HOFer all the way.....

[Mudfly]

Here is an interesting stat break out.....and before anyone freaks out, Im not implying Dansby is better than Lewis......just saying these are some interesting numbers....make of them what you will.....

 

I noted that Dansby and Ray Lewis have very similar stats, and in fact, Dansby has overall better #'s, even though he has played 5 years less than Lewis....so I decided just to break it out into a yearly average and see how it looked....

 

Ray Lewis.........(per season) = 78 tkls....2.4 sacks....1.8 ints....3.9 Pdef....1.0 FF...7.0.TFL

Carlos Dansby..(per season) = 100 tkls..3.4 sacks....1.6 ints....5.7 Pdef....1.5 FF...9.5 TFL

 

So....technically....Id say Dansby has him beat, based solely upon stats....more tackles, more sacks, more tackles for loss, more forced fumbles.....and "almost" as much mouth....

[gftChris]

Here is an interesting stat break out.....and before anyone freaks out, Im not implying Dansby is better than Lewis......just saying these are some interesting numbers....make of them what you will.....

 

I noted that Dansby and Ray Lewis have very similar stats, and in fact, Dansby has overall better #'s, even though he has played 5 years less than Lewis....so I decided just to break it out into a yearly average and see how it looked....

 

Ray Lewis.........(per season) = 78 tkls....2.4 sacks....1.8 ints....3.9 Pdef....1.0 FF...7.0.TFL

Carlos Dansby..(per season) = 100 tkls..3.4 sacks....1.6 ints....5.7 Pdef....1.5 FF...9.5 TFL

 

So....technically....Id say Dansby has him beat, based solely upon stats....more tackles, more sacks, more tackles for loss, more forced fumbles.....and "almost" as much mouth....

Fewer murder investigations though.

[Mudfly]

Fewer murder investigations though.

Ha!....absolutely right....

[The Gipper]

Here is an interesting stat break out.....and before anyone freaks out, Im not implying Dansby is better than Lewis......just saying these are some interesting numbers....make of them what you will.....

 

I noted that Dansby and Ray Lewis have very similar stats, and in fact, Dansby has overall better #'s, even though he has played 5 years less than Lewis....so I decided just to break it out into a yearly average and see how it looked....

 

Ray Lewis.........(per season) = 78 tkls....2.4 sacks....1.8 ints....3.9 Pdef....1.0 FF...7.0.TFL

Carlos Dansby..(per season) = 100 tkls..3.4 sacks....1.6 ints....5.7 Pdef....1.5 FF...9.5 TFL

 

So....technically....Id say Dansby has him beat, based solely upon stats....more tackles, more sacks, more tackles for loss, more forced fumbles.....and "almost" as much mouth....

Well, Lewis was the leader of a defense that won 2 Super Bowls....so that obviously helps.

Lewis is also #7 overall in Production average....behind only the likes of Peyton, Favre, Rice, Reggie White, Bruce Smith and Tarkenton.

Dansby so far has not cracked the Top 250 in that category.

[Mudfly]

Well, Lewis was the leader of a defense that won 2 Super Bowls....so that obviously helps.

Lewis is also #7 overall in Production average....behind only the likes of Peyton, Favre, Rice, Reggie White, Bruce Smith and Tarkenton.

Dansby so far has not cracked the Top 250 in that category.

AV?....I wonder how they come up with that, considering it cant just be stats....they must really weight winning as well as their estimate on how much that player is responsible for the wins???

[The Gipper]

AV?....I wonder how they come up with that, considering it cant just be stats....they must really weight winning as well as their estimate on how much that player is responsible for the wins???

I don't know the math behind it. One factor is longevity. Favre, Manning Lewis, Tarkenton, Rice.....these guys all played at a fairly high level for almost 20 years. So that is huge.

I honestly don't think winning per se is part of the algorithm.

Maybe if Dansby plays fairly well for the next 5 years he could start to move up the ranks (but, as noted, he is not in the top 250)

[Tour2ma]

Doug's Brief AV Explanation:

 

"AV is not meant to be a be-all end-all metric. Football stat lines just do not come close to capturing all the contributions of a player the way they do in baseball and basketball. If one player is a 16 and another is a 14, we can't be very confident that the 16AV player actually had a better season than the 14AV player. But I am pretty confident that the collection of all players with 16AV played better, as an entire group, than the collection of all players with 14AV."

 

"Essentially, AV is a substitute for --- and a significant improvement upon, in my opinion --- metrics like 'number of seasons as a starter' or 'number of times making the pro bowl' or the like. You should think of it as being essentially like those two metrics, but with interpolation in between. That is, 'number of seasons as a starter' is a reasonable starting point if you're trying to measure, say, how good a particular draft class is, or what kind of player you can expect to get with the #13 pick in the draft. But obviously some starters are better than others. Starters on good teams are, as a group, better than starters on bad teams. Starting WRs who had lots of receiving yards are, as a group, better than starting WRs who did not have many receiving yards. Starters who made the pro bowl are, as a group, better than starters who didn't, and so on. And non-starters aren't worthless, so they get some points too."

 

 

You can get as deep as you wish into their AV methodology through this page:

http://www.sports-reference.com/blog/approximate-value/

[Mudfly]

Doug's Brief AV Explanation:

 

"AV is not meant to be a be-all end-all metric. Football stat lines just do not come close to capturing all the contributions of a player the way they do in baseball and basketball. If one player is a 16 and another is a 14, we can't be very confident that the 16AV player actually had a better season than the 14AV player. But I am pretty confident that the collection of all players with 16AV played better, as an entire group, than the collection of all players with 14AV."

 

"Essentially, AV is a substitute for --- and a significant improvement upon, in my opinion --- metrics like 'number of seasons as a starter' or 'number of times making the pro bowl' or the like. You should think of it as being essentially like those two metrics, but with interpolation in between. That is, 'number of seasons as a starter' is a reasonable starting point if you're trying to measure, say, how good a particular draft class is, or what kind of player you can expect to get with the #13 pick in the draft. But obviously some starters are better than others. Starters on good teams are, as a group, better than starters on bad teams. Starting WRs who had lots of receiving yards are, as a group, better than starting WRs who did not have many receiving yards. Starters who made the pro bowl are, as a group, better than starters who didn't, and so on. And non-starters aren't worthless, so they get some points too."

 

 

You can get as deep as you wish into their AV methodology through this page:

http://www.sports-reference.com/blog/approximate-value/

Awesome....thanks

[The Gipper]

Doug's Brief AV Explanation:

 

"AV is not meant to be a be-all end-all metric. Football stat lines just do not come close to capturing all the contributions of a player the way they do in baseball and basketball. If one player is a 16 and another is a 14, we can't be very confident that the 16AV player actually had a better season than the 14AV player. But I am pretty confident that the collection of all players with 16AV played better, as an entire group, than the collection of all players with 14AV."

 

"Essentially, AV is a substitute for --- and a significant improvement upon, in my opinion --- metrics like 'number of seasons as a starter' or 'number of times making the pro bowl' or the like. You should think of it as being essentially like those two metrics, but with interpolation in between. That is, 'number of seasons as a starter' is a reasonable starting point if you're trying to measure, say, how good a particular draft class is, or what kind of player you can expect to get with the #13 pick in the draft. But obviously some starters are better than others. Starters on good teams are, as a group, better than starters on bad teams. Starting WRs who had lots of receiving yards are, as a group, better than starting WRs who did not have many receiving yards. Starters who made the pro bowl are, as a group, better than starters who didn't, and so on. And non-starters aren't worthless, so they get some points too."

 

 

You can get as deep as you wish into their AV methodology through this page:

http://www.sports-reference.com/blog/approximate-value/

Yes, it is just a thumbnail stat. It tries to do something other stats cannot do: measure players against each other that play wholly different positions. Like comparing LBs to WRs etc.

Until something that can do that better comes along, this is about as good as I know of to try to do that.