A couple years ago I wrote a post discussing the difficulties that Tim Brown, Andre Reed and Cris Carter were having
Courtesy of the Pro Football Hall of Fame
getting the support necessary to earn the votes needed for enshrinement in the Hall of Fame.
It seemed, based on comments from voters and analysis by a number of pundits, that the voters couldn’t decide which one to put in the Hall first – so all of their candidacies suffered.
In that post, I made the argument that Brown warranted being inducted first, but added that all three ultimately should be inducted – and that voters better get it together fast because a new class of wide receivers are on their way.
Carter finally got in last year. While I remain convinced that Brown and Reed are both worthy of being inducted, I think their candidacies – at least pre-senior committee – may be in some trouble if one of them doesn’t get in this year.
The problem is that starting this year, guys who played during the heavier passing era the NFL has moved to are now becoming eligible for the Hall. That starts with Colts wideout Marvin Harrison.
When I went to compare Harrison to the three receivers I wrote about previously, I was stunned at how close Harrison’s numbers were to Carter’s during their respective careers. They went to the same number of Pro Bowls. Harrison had three All Pro first team awards to Carter’s two. Harrison had one more catch and 681 more receiving yards. They had the same number of 1,000 yard seasons and Harrison reached the 10 touchdown season plateau two times more than Carter.
| Carter | Harrison | Brown | Reed | |
| Seasons | 16 | 13 | 17 | 16 |
| Pro Bowls | 8 | 8 | 9 | 7 |
| 1st Team AP | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Catches | 1,101 | 1,102 | 1,094 | 951 |
| Yards | 13,899 | 14,580 | 14,934 | 13,198 |
| Touchdowns | 130 | 128 | 100 | 87 |
| Super Bowls | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Super Bowl wins | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 1000 yard seasons | 8 | 8 | 9 | 4 |
| 10 TD seasons | 6 | 8 | 2 | 1 |
| Times finalist | 6 | 1 | 5 | 8 |
The difference between the two? Harrison did this in three fewer seasons than it took Carter to accumulate his numbers.
There are a number of reasons for this. Among them:
- Harrison had the benefit of playing with Peyton Manning. Carter’s QBs weren’t as mediocre as Tim Brown’s were, but they weren’t the most statistically dominant QB of all time either.
- Harrison had the benefit of playing in an era where the pass has become more and more prominent. Carter was also in on many of those seasons, but it’s really taken off in recent years.
- Carter’s first years were affected by personal demons and potentially by disagreements with the Philadelphia coaching staff.
- Harrison also arguably may have been a more physically skilled receiver.
All of that comes into play as voters have to figure out whether to induct Reed or Brown in 2014 or if Harrison jumps above them and becomes a first-ballot inductee. Despite the issues Harrison has had off the field since his career ended – which is not supposed to play a role in Hall voters’ decisions anyway – you certainly can make a case that his accomplishments outpace those of Brown and Reed. And it would be impossible to argue with anyone saying Harrison is worthy of a first-ballot induction, if that is the way the votes fall.
At the same time, this is where the difficulties for Brown and Reed will come in going forward. In the next five years, Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt, Terrell Owens, Hines Ward, Donald Driver and Randy Moss are among the wide receivers who will come up for Hall of Fame candidacy. Not all of them will make it, but most of them will at least garner some support. And all of them played in an era where the statistical comparisons are going to be blurry at best.
Both my brother and I predicted several months ago that Reed would get the call this season. As the announcement draws near, I’m not so sure we’re right on that. There’s a lot of support for Harrison. But the safest way to ensure that Brown and Reed are inducted during their modern era eligibility would be to make the Colts star wait at least one season in order to get one of the longer-term candidates in this season. Otherwise both Brown and Reed could be in for a long wait.
Loading ...
If Carter was not a 1st time selection at WR then I think Harrison may fall into the same situation as first time selections at WR are rare, and because I believe HOF voters continue to struggle with the career numbers of players across so many eras before and now during the rise in passing offenses. And with a close comparison between Harrison, Reed and Brown (just like there was between Carter, Reed and Brown), Harrison may be set aside as voters, including previous supporters of Carter now flip their support to Reed since he has been on the ballot a while and went further (Into the final 10 last two years) . Another factor may be that if Brooks and Jones get elected how likely are voters to add another 1st year player (3rd) in the class of 2014?. I know there were 3 first time players elected last year, but those types of classes are rare.
Personally, I am sticking with Reed as I think the momentum is in his corner, especially as HOF voters who supported Reed agreed to support Carter last year to finally get a WR election, so perhaps fair turnaround can be expected this year from the Carter supporters???? And I think the support may not be as great as we think for Harrison.
Of course also very possible I (and others) are overthinking the current WR logjam, and Harrison is seen clearly by the majority of HOF voters as the best and deserving of first time election and gets in, leaving Reed and Brown to wait another year!
I’m sure it’s been done here before, but can someone make the case for Reed over Harrison (or Reed over Brown, for that matter) because I’m not seeing it.
I’m hoping that Carter’s election means that the selectors finally came up with a hierarchy for the WRs similar to the one that quickly developed for the three RBs who became eligible together in 2011 (Faulk, Martin, and Bettis). Consistent with the general consensus, the selectors decided that Faulk was the best of the bunch and inducted him immediately. Once Faulk was selected, they then inducted the next best RB, Martin, leaving Bettis to be inducted sometime soon. All three are worthy, but the selectors were able to rank the three fairly consistently in their minds (and the minds of most football people).
Getting back to the WRs, it appears that the selectors could not decide for sometime which of the three were the most deserving (admittedly they played across different eras to an extent and under very different circumstances), but eventually settled on Carter. The question now turns to whether they can decide between this year’s three finalists (from even more divergent eras and circumstances) and come up with an answer that will enable all three to get inducted sooner rather than later.
For my money, I think Harrison is likely the “best” of the bunch. He was blessed to play with Manning, but he also has more career accomplishments (more all pro selections, 1st team all decade, etc.) and so many signature catches that he is more worthy (to me) than Reed and Brown. However, if there was a decision among the selectors to “rank” Carter, Reed, and Brown (which I hope there was), then maybe Reed or Brown gets inducted this year while Harrison waits. For me, this is the most interested question for today. I would be very surprised if Strahan, Brooks, and Jones weren’t inducted. Therefore, there are only two more slots. Hopefully, one slot for a receiver (I’d go with Brown as a compromise candidate to free up the backlog) and a second slot for a wild card (to me, Williams (criminally underrated) and Dungy seem the most likely).
In any event, we’ll know soon.
I still have a question whether HOF voters will again select 3 first time finalists (Brooks, Jones and Harrison) plus the rarity of a WR as a first time finalist, plus Reed’s years on the ballot, still have me leaning towards Reed, and Harrison waiting until next year. As to the “last” slot I think this is the year Haley gets in as after the 2013 election he appears to be the one candidate discussed most as the miss (well along with Stranan). I think Williams is close but not as much as Haley, and with Parcells elected last year (and it was not his first time on the ballot) Dungy will be waiting and again he would create (with Brooks and Jones) a three person first time finalist list – again unlikely this year.
But will have to wait now until results are released “unofficially” around 630p this evening during their announcement when the NFL awards show is taped.
So again my final predictions are:
Brooks
Guy
Haley
Humprey
Jones
Reed
Strahan
But good luck to all the finalists and to the HOF voters who get little praise and annual attacks over their decisions which are not always warranted or fair (as we can see on these board by the various different opinions selecting the class is not very easy)
Peter King’s thoughts with an interesting quote from Warren Sapp’s presenter last year.
http://mmqb.si.com/2014/01/31/pro-football-hall-of-fame-2014-voting/
I have no sympathy whatsoever for the HOF voters who receive attacks (many legitimate) if they aren’t all willing to publicize their votes and offer rationales.
All I am saying is looking at the final 15 each year there are legitimate reasons why some players get elected and some do not. Poll the public, fans or posters on this board and rarely will you find agreement on five modern selections from the final 15 in any election year, which again illustrates how hard the process is and how many deserving players are in the final 15 each year. I have no problem with fair criticisms and debate but get tired of the apparent screaming from some corners when “their” player is not elected as for the majority of candidates there are pro and con to their qualifications.
In my view and from what I understand the majority of the voters make a great effort and give of their time, through several steps and a several hour meeting to come to their voting decisions. And when compared to the baseball, hockey and basketball HOFs, I think the pro football election process is by far the best – not perfect as no such election from 25 to 15 to 5 elected is ever going to be so.
Do I think that simply because Sapp got elected last year and Stranan and Haley did not means that the process is flawed and the voters have no clue as to what they are doing? No. I can disagree but understand to require 80% for election it does not take many votes to eliminate valid players in any given year. Personally I think Stranan should have been elected over Sapp, but can see where the Sapp supporters and votes come from.
The HOF voters do not make the rules on how the election process is run and that they are not allowed to publicly discuss their votes and debates. If someone has a problem with the rules take it up with the rule makers, HOF Board.
As to all the discussions each year that the process is flawed and wrong simply because in the mind and opinions of some outsiders certain players should be elected and some sooner then others as mentioned in the MMWB article posted, at the end of day voters are making an opinion and value drive decisions as many positions and players can not be defined (or separated) only by numbers: for example comparing an OL against a LB. And with only 5 slots limited space so each year if there are 6 or 7 candidates some are simply not going to get elected.
So it does not matter if there are writers, NFL staff or players (or some mix of backgrounds) or whether there are 30 voters or 40 or 60, the challenges and numbers game will always be there. I think the process has actually improved in recent years with an increase in the number of voters and more diversity and introduction of newer voters into the groups.
I do think that contributors and coaches should be subject to a separate process so as to not pit players against non-players when it comes to elections with only 5 modern slots each year.
Now the senior nomination process is a whole another issue that I have already expressed my view as to how it really needs to be addressed and improved.
I was talking about voters giving their own votes, and explaining why they voted the way they did. As far as I know there’s no rule against that. Participants in an opaque process this flawed (Sapp over Strahan is hardly the first dubious judgement) shouldn’t whine if they receive criticism.
HOF rules do not allow voters to discuss their votes
I was thinking a few had, but that’s all the more reason to level withering criticism at a lousy process.
Oh, and who sets the rules?
HOF sets rules, they can predict in advance and talk about class but not reveal their votes or debates that took place in room, so voters have crossed line before and been warned by HOF. If you think votes should be made public take it up with HOF and not voters
Who is the “HOF”? How are they selected? And, to clarify, are you saying selectors are prohibited from publicizing their own votes and reasoning afterwards or only before an election?
HOF is run by a Board and staff, HOF Board makes rules, staff runs elections appoints voters. Voters can predict results but not reveal their voting or any discussions from meeting room
This is all tangential since such a deeply flawed process merits criticism, from the board to the selectors who voluntarily participate in it, but, again, to clarify, are you saying the staff “runs elections appoints voters” meaning the selectors? It was my understanding that new selectors are chosen by their colleagues, the other selectors. And who chooses the board members? Other board members, or otherwise quiet ownership stakeholders?