Donald Driver...Special?

[Waldo]

HoF is too much of a popularity contest. Micheal Irvin gets in before Art Monk? Please. I wish they had a more definitive guideline (maybe something like Waldo suggests), but they don't.

Monk and Irvin are very similar. Both were 3x Superbowl champs. Neither was the first inducted from their team. Both had 1x first team all-pro. Both only ever led the league in a single stat category once, receptions for Monk and Yards for Irvin. Monk played a good bit longer, Irvin had a higher yd/gm and td/gm average. Monk had a higher Rec/gm average.

Being the leading receiver on a multi superbowl team though goes a long way. Cris Carter blows them away at everything. Except being a winner.

[sharpe1027]

Monk and Irvin are very similar. Both were 3x Superbowl champs. Neither was the first inducted from their team. Both had 1x first team all-pro. Both only ever led the league in a single stat category once, receptions for Monk and Yards for Irvin. Monk played a good bit longer, Irvin had a higher yd/gm and td/gm average. Monk had a higher Rec/gm average.

Being the leading receiver on a multi superbowl team though goes a long way. Cris Carter blows them away at everything. Except being a winner.

Monk lead in Yds/game in 1985 (missed one game).

Irvin lead in Yds/game in 1996 (missed 5 games).

Comparing yds/gm and td/gm in the 80s to yds/gm and td/gm in the 90s isn't apples to apples.

The leaders in the 1990s were all above 1400 and mostly above 1500 yds/gm. They even were as high as 1800 in 1995.

The leaders in the 1980s were as low as just over 1000 and never above 1600.

That's what annoys me. Even if you completely ignore how much passing numbers inflated in the 90s, they were similar.

Monk eligible in: 2000; entered in 2008
Irvin eligible in: 2005; entered in 2007

Monk took from 2000 to 2008, Irving only took from 2005-2007 and he still got in first! Obviously, somebody thought they weren't so similar. Why would Irvin get in first? My best guess is because he had a "big name," he was controversial and because he "looked" impressive because of his size.

[packerbacker1234]

Packers HOF? Yes. Pro football HOF? Absolutely not.

There are a number of "tests" that each player must pass in order to make it (Peter King (a HOF voter) has talked at length about this).

The longevity test - HOF players played at a high level for a long time. Few players that retire before their mid 30's have a chance. Playing well beyind when their peers do is a sign of greateness. Driver passes this test.

The best test - To make the Hall a player must have been considered the best at their position for a period of their career. Since the Hall voters are also part of the MVP, DPOY, OPOY, and All-Pro voters, they look to these accolades first when making best assessments. Hall players typically earned multiple first team All-Pro accolades during their career, and earning MVP, DPOY, and/or OPOY honors at least once significantly improves their chances. Driver fails this test, having never earned a league-wide accolade above making the pro-bowl in his career.

The stats test - A player must have career statisics that places them high in the record books at the end of their career. Don is #40 on the career reception list, with about 650 (several active players ahead of him). He'll need to get to about 1,000 before he retires before that # becomes hall worthy. He's #42 on the career yards at about 9100. He'll need to get into the 13,000 area for that # to be hall worthy (lots of active players ahead of him). He's #92 on the career TD list with 51. He's very low in that stat. He'll need to hit at least 90 for his career to be hall worthy. There are a lot of active WR's with more career TD's than Don. Don fails the stats test.

The single season stats test - This goes back to and relates to the best test, but record setting seasons, and season's leading the league in a key stat significantly improve a players chances. This is hand in hand with the best test, almost always a player will earn the accolades that go with being considered the best if they put up the stats in a single season that prove they are the best. Driver fails this test.

The winner test - Hall voters clearly prefer players that won Superbowls. They seem to be very concious of how many players per superbowl team they have in the hall, and make efforts to correct deficiencies, or hold guys back so they don't have too many. For players that weren't on Superbowl teams, everything else has to shine relative to the guys that won them. If a guy was not a key component on a superbowl team, his chances clearly decline. This is really going to hurt Don's chances, thus far he hasn't been on a superbowl winning team, and if we do win it hurts him just as much since guys like Rodgers, Woodson, Matthews (?), and Finley (?) (possibly Collins too) would get hall looks before him, he likely would run into the too many HOF players on a SB team problem before he got in.

The big play test - This is less of a necessity, but it can provide a significant boost. If a player is known for a single play of greatness, it will signficantly improve their chances, especially if that play occurred on a big spot (even though the outcome was not in his favor, Woodson does have the tuck rule play going for him in this test, not as big of a boost as say James Harrison's pick 6 in the superbowl, but it will help him). Don has made a lot of nice plays, but he hasn't made one special memorable play in a big spot. The last Packer WR to make a single play that would help their HOF chances was Freeman's long TD catch in the Superbowl.

Don has a long way to go, and at his age it is very doubtful he'd get there. He basically would have to be the best WR in the league for a couple years here at the tail end of his career to give him a shot.

When you look at the guys that played the majority of their career in the 00's, Driver's peers, I think that Owens, Moss, Bruce, and Harrison are the ones that have a shot, each will get looks long before Don, outperforming him in every signle one of these tests.

You admitted the big play did not neccessary have to result in a big win - so if Freeman's long Super Bowl TD is a boost, wouldn't drivers long TD in the NFC Championship game in 2007 be considered a boost? He had to outrun defenders that were clearly faster than him in very cold weather in a sitution wher ethe packers hadn't been able to do anything offensively all game. He came through big, getting wide open and high stepping defenders down the sideline for a TD - a TD that coincidently was just enough to help us get into overtime later.

We didn't win - we all know how it ended, but wouldn't that be considered a "defining play in a big moment?".

[pbmax]

HoF is too much of a popularity contest. Micheal Irvin gets in before Art Monk? Please. I wish they had a more definitive guideline (maybe something like Waldo suggests), but they don't.

I don't think we agree on what popularity means. Monk was by far the better regarded person. By media and fans. Irvin was despised in many quarters.

The difference in their HOF candidacies was not popularity.

[sharpe1027]

I don't think we agree on what popularity means. Monk was by far the better regarded person. By media and fans. Irvin was despised in many quarters.

The difference in their HOF candidacies was not popularity.

Art Monk was regarded as the better person, but I meant that Irvin the football player was appealing to the general public in regards to their perception of his play on the field. I called that popularity, but I am sure there is a better word for it. Semantics aside, I am guessing you had a pretty good idea what I meant.

Obviously I can't prove what I believe, it is just my opinion. Did you have any explanation for the difference?

[mraynrand]

I don't think we agree on what popularity means. Monk was by far the better regarded person. By media and fans. Irvin was despised in many quarters.

The difference in their HOF candidacies was not popularity.

Art Monk was regarded as the better person, but I meant that Irvin the football player was appealing to the general public in regards to their perception of his play on the field. I called that popularity, but I am sure there is a better word for it. Semantics aside, I am guessing you had a pretty good idea what I meant.

Obviously I can't prove what I believe, it is just my opinion. Did you have any explanation for the difference?

Probably age and irritable bowel syndrome.