Bob Hayes was screwed all along

[THUMPER]

And the stats for todays players are inflated by the pass happy rules. So what?

The difference is that the WCO QBs had inflated stats compared with their contemporaries, that is not true of WRs today.

When you compare Montana and Marino in the 80s for instance, Montana has a much higher QB rating even though Marino was throwing for more yards and TDs. The "Passer Rating" tends to reward the shorter passing game and penalize the deep game because it is focused on Completion % and TD/INT ratio. Throwing short means you will complete more passes and have fewer INTs so it inflates the rating for those QBs and penalizes guys who throw deep more often.

It is one thing when rules changes give an advantage to one era over another, that's just part of the evolution of the game, but when something effects players of the same era then that isn't the same thing and adjustments should be made.

 

[Blast From The Past]

Here's the list of WRs from the 60s that are in the HoF:

Raymond Berry 1955-67
Tommy McDonald 1957-68
Bobby Mitchell 1958-68
Don Maynard 1958-73
Lance Alworth 1962-72
Paul Warfield 1964-77
Charley Taylor 1964-77
Fred Biletnikoff 1965-78
Bob Hayes 1965-75

Not one of these fine gentlemen have been linked forevermore to having changed the game like Bullet, that statement alone should have warranted unbiased consideration while he was still alive and he probably should have been inducted as well on his stats alone,:bang2: off the field issues aside.

 

[theogt]

This is how Hitler came into power.

:laugh2:

 

[THUMPER]

Not one of these fine gentlemen have been linked forevermore to having changed the game like Bullet, that statement alone should have warranted unbiased consideration while he was still alive and he probably should have been inducted as well on his stats alone,:bang2: off the field issues aside.

Paul Warfield and Raymond Berry are the only two of that group who could be considered the best in the league when they played. Well, I guess technically speaking the same could be said about Alworth and Maynard regarding the AFL.

But like you said, none of them had the impact on how the game is played like Hayes did.

 

[fgoodwin]

Not one of these fine gentlemen have been linked forevermore to having changed the game like Bullet, that statement alone should have warranted unbiased consideration while he was still alive and he probably should have been inducted as well on his stats alone,:bang2: off the field issues aside.

I know you didn't say it exactly this way, but others have claimed that Hayes was single-handedly responsible for the development of the zone defense. That is simply not true; defenses were playing zones as early as the Fifties.

The Detroit Lions won two NFL titles in the '50s playing zone with the likes of Yale Lary and Jack Christiansen in the defensive backfield (see "The First Fifty Years", page 147). The Colts deployed a zone defense in a losing effort against the Browns in the '64 NFL title game (see "Real Football", page 43).

Look, as a one-time football player and track runner myself, I love Bob Hayes as much as anyone does. But I think we need to put to rest this myth that he alone was responsible for the development of the zone defense -- it simply isn't true.

I don't think debunking the myth detracts in any way from Hayes' accomplishments or his worthiness for the HOF.

 

[fgoodwin]

By the way: why isn't this thread in the History Zone?

 

[Sarge]

Great job Thumper!

Yes indeed. One of the reasons that I really could care less about the HOF...and that is sad...

Good job Thumpster.

 

[THUMPER]

Yes indeed. One of the reasons that I really could care less about the HOF...and that is sad...

Good job Thumpster.

Thanks Sarge and good morning. :starspin

 

[AbeBeta]

There are some legit justifications there. In 1968 Hayes didn't even lead the TEAM in receiving. Lance Rentzel did with 54-1009 - 18.7 YPC - 6 TD.

in 1970 and 1971 Hayes simply didn't have enough catches. We were a very strong run oriented offense then. We ran the ball 522 times in 70 and 512 in 71. That was first and 2nd in the league both years. You simply don't put a guy with so few catches on the probowl when the success of his team clearly comes from the run game.

Finally, and I say this because every one of your posts seems to miss this point. Comparisons with borderline picks (to the probowl, to the HoF, etc.) continue to be meaningless. The worst argument anyone can make is that someone was screwed because a borderline pick had comparable stats.

 

[THUMPER]

There are some legit justifications there. In 1968 Hayes didn't even lead the TEAM in receiving. Lance Rentzel did with 54-1009 - 18.7 YPC - 6 TD.

Rentzel didn't make the Pro-Bowl either that year but guys who accomplished less than either one did. He also had one more reception than Hayes but 4 fewer TDs.
Carroll Dale didn't lead his team either as he had fewer receptions than his teammate Boyd Dowler, but I guess your logic doesn't apply to him does it.

Pretty lame argument.

in 1970 and 1971 Hayes simply didn't have enough catches. We were a very strong run oriented offense then. We ran the ball 522 times in 70 and 512 in 71. That was first and 2nd in the league both years. You simply don't put a guy with so few catches on the probowl when the success of his team clearly comes from the run game.

Didn't have enough catches? That's the dumbest argument I've heard in a long time. He had more yards and more TDs but 6-7 fewer catches and you think that should be the deciding factor? That's ridiculous!
How does the success of the team not come from a guy with 10 TD receptions but it does from a guy with 2 or 4 (Dale & Washington)?
I'll bet you wouldn't make the same argument about Michael Irvin even though our 90s offense ran mostly through Emmitt.

Hayes was a far better receiver than either Gene Washington or Carroll Dale, both his stats and the team's success show that to be true. So Dale stood out in an otherwise inept offense, that doesn't make him a better player than Hayes. The Packers went 6-8 in 1970 and were constantly playing from behind so they had to throw a lot more often. The Cowboys were usually ahead so they were able to run the ball more. You would penalize Hayes because he played for a better team?

That's crazy. Especially so when you don't do the same with Gene Washington. The Vikings went 12-2 that year and Washington didn't stand out that much for them.

Truly a lame point.

Finally, and I say this because every one of your posts seems to miss this point. Comparisons with borderline picks (to the probowl, to the HoF, etc.) continue to be meaningless. The worst argument anyone can make is that someone was screwed because a borderline pick had comparable stats.

So guys like Bob Hayes, John Niland, Chuck Howley, Cliff Harris, etc. were just "good" players on great teams but that same doesn't hold for Packers, Stealers or Dolphins I guess.

When you compare players and see a disparity between how many of them are NOT in the HoF from a particular team even though they match up very favorably with those that are I guess you just attribute it to "they just weren't that good".

So you disagree with me, that's fine, but at least have some credible arguments for why. These were pathetic and you didn't even apply them evenly. Each one you made was easily applicable to the very guys I said should NOT have been selected ahead of Hayes.

 

[burmafrd]

Coach after coach said that Hayes forced them to change their defenses to play him. If that is not changing the game then what is. Of course the Zone in one form or another had been around but Hayes FORCED the NFL to use it in every game he played in or get burned. Once again that is changing the game which is the FIRST criteria for election.

 

[BAT]

There are some legit justifications there. In 1968 Hayes didn't even lead the TEAM in receiving. Lance Rentzel did with 54-1009 - 18.7 YPC - 6 TD.

in 1970 and 1971 Hayes simply didn't have enough catches. We were a very strong run oriented offense then. We ran the ball 522 times in 70 and 512 in 71. That was first and 2nd in the league both years. You simply don't put a guy with so few catches on the probowl when the success of his team clearly comes from the run game.

Finally, and I say this because every one of your posts seems to miss this point. Comparisons with borderline picks (to the probowl, to the HoF, etc.) continue to be meaningless. The worst argument anyone can make is that someone was screwed because a borderline pick had comparable stats.

Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing? Because this was some seriously weak stuff. Just b/c a team is run dominant, this would justify the exclusion of a WR for post season accolades EVEN THOUGH HE PRODUCED??? Although you do place your own subjective criteria_not enough catches, even though he outpreformed some who were chosen by total yards, ypc & TDs.


Like Thumper said, your "argument" is not justifiable at all and it would unfairly preclude not only WRs but QBs from teams that were primarily run oriented. Using your "logic", neither Troy Aikman nor Mike Irvin deserved any pro bowls either. And Barry Sanders played most of his career in a run and shoot scheme, did Herman Moore deserve to go to the pro bowl when he lead the league in catches? Or perhaps Sanders did not deserve to go to the pro bowl that year.


Ridiculous.

 

[THUMPER]

Coach after coach said that Hayes forced them to change their defenses to play him. If that is not changing the game then what is. Of course the Zone in one form or another had been around but Hayes FORCED the NFL to use it in every game he played in or get burned. Once again that is changing the game which is the FIRST criteria for election.

I agree. The Giants, Browns and Lions in particular had used a form of zone defense in the 50s but it didn't become common until teams were forced (I like your use of the word there) to use it by Hayes.

 

[AbeBeta]

Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing? Because this was some seriously weak stuff. Just b/c a team is run dominant, this would justify the exclusion of a WR for post season accolades EVEN THOUGH HE PRODUCED??? Although you do place your own subjective criteria_not enough catches, even though he outpreformed some who were chosen by total yards, ypc & TDs.

First you ignored the fact that in one of the years you cited he wasn't even the TEAM's top WR.

Second. A run dominant team doesn't use their WRs very much. That's why he had <40 receptions in both of those years.

Third, where exactly is the out performance? I see comparable but not overwhelmingly better outcomes.

Like Thumper said, your "argument" is not justifiable at all and it would unfairly preclude not only WRs but QBs from teams that were primarily run oriented. Using your "logic", neither Troy Aikman nor Mike Irvin deserved any pro bowls either. And Barry Sanders played most of his career in a run and shoot scheme, did Herman Moore deserve to go to the pro bowl when he lead the league in catches? Or perhaps Sanders did not deserve to go to the pro bowl that year.


Ridiculous.

Your Sanders/Moore point is laughable - these guys actually had the dominant numbers. Bullet didn't in those years.

 

[AbeBeta]

Rentzel didn't make the Pro-Bowl either that year but guys who accomplished less than either one did. He also had one more reception than Hayes but 4 fewer TDs.
Carroll Dale didn't lead his team either as he had fewer receptions than his teammate Boyd Dowler, but I guess your logic doesn't apply to him does it.

Pretty lame argument.

Right. Hayes wasn't even #1 on his team but he should have been in the probowl because he had stats that looked like other players who did make it.

Didn't have enough catches? That's the dumbest argument I've heard in a long time. He had more yards and more TDs but 6-7 fewer catches and you think that should be the deciding factor? That's ridiculous!
How does the success of the team not come from a guy with 10 TD receptions but it does from a guy with 2 or 4 (Dale & Washington)?
I'll bet you wouldn't make the same argument about Michael Irvin even though our 90s offense ran mostly through Emmitt.

You can't make that argument about Irvin because, unlike Hayes, he did have outstanding #s. The years we were run dominant, Irvin was still top 10 if not top 5 in the league in catches.

Hayes was a far better receiver than either Gene Washington or Carroll Dale, both his stats and the team's success show that to be true. So Dale stood out in an otherwise inept offense, that doesn't make him a better player than Hayes. The Packers went 6-8 in 1970 and were constantly playing from behind so they had to throw a lot more often. The Cowboys were usually ahead so they were able to run the ball more. You would penalize Hayes because he played for a better team?

Hayes isn't being penalized for playing for a better team - he's being penalized for playing for a strongly run oriented team. Bob certainly had better YPC numbers and you certainly can make a case that he should have been on the team. But his performance was not so clearly dominant that he would have been a slam dunk. Why? B/c he just didn't catch a ton of balls. Like it or not, that is an influential stat.

That's crazy. Especially so when you don't do the same with Gene Washington. The Vikings went 12-2 that year and Washington didn't stand out that much for them.

Truly a lame point.

The lame point here is that "Washigton didn't stand out that much" either. Yes, neither of them stood out. Argue that Washington shouldn't have made the probowl. But to argue that Hayes should have been there in his place -- without any reference to other players and their performances just shows your Hayes colored blinders

So guys like Bob Hayes, John Niland, Chuck Howley, Cliff Harris, etc. were just "good" players on great teams but that same doesn't hold for Packers, Stealers or Dolphins I guess.

When you compare players and see a disparity between how many of them are NOT in the HoF from a particular team even though they match up very favorably with those that are I guess you just attribute it to "they just weren't that good".

So you disagree with me, that's fine, but at least have some credible arguments for why. These were pathetic and you didn't even apply them evenly. Each one you made was easily applicable to the very guys I said should NOT have been selected ahead of Hayes.

Credible arguments -- again, if you think comparing against the worst performing HoF players and calling "bias" if one guy is in and someone with comparable #s isn't is some form of smart argument then you've got it totally wrong. Gee, this guy sucks compared to other probowlers -- and our guy was similarly bad!!! Bias!!! Bias!!! Everyone hate the Cowboys!!

 

[BAT]

First you ignored the fact that in one of the years you cited he wasn't even the TEAM's top WR.

Incorrect. Just b/c Rentzel should have been named to the pro bowl too, does not preclude Hayes worthiness. In 1968, Hayes OUTPERFORMED Willie Richardson in EVERY category (catches, yards, ypc, TDs). Just b/c Rentzel was deserving too does not mean Hayes was NOT. Are there rules against voting only one WR per team to post season honors????

Second. A run dominant team doesn't use their WRs very much. That's why he had <40 receptions in both of those years.

Third, where exactly is the out performance? I see comparable but not overwhelmingly better outcomes.

Look harder your obvious bias is showing. Hayes outperformed the other WRs chosen over him, in every category but catches in both 1970 and 1971. Unless you trying to tell me that double, even triple the number of touchdowns is not significant?

Your Sanders/Moore point is laughable - these guys actually had the dominant numbers. Bullet didn't in those years.

It was YOUR contention that run oriented teams did not deserve to send WR representatives to the pro bowl, I just naturally extended your theory to QBs. So it is very convenient of you to leave out your explanation as to why Irvin and Aikman were pro bowl worthy but Hayes was not . You know, Thumper put the stats for everyone to see, Hayes had "the numbers" too. Hayes clearly was more deserving (at the very least, just as deserving) than Willie Richardson, Carroll Dale, Rick Gordon and Gene Washington in '68, '70 and '71.



Are you really a Cowboys fan? Serious question.

 

[AbeBeta]

Incorrect. Just b/c Rentzel should have been named to the pro bowl too, does not preclude Hayes worthiness. In 1968, Hayes OUTPERFORMED Willie Richardson in EVERY category (catches, yards, ypc, TDs). Just b/c Rentzel was deserving too does not mean Hayes was NOT. Are there rules against voting only one WR per team to post season honors????

Didn't say he wasn't worthy. Lots of worthy guys miss - In fact, in 1967 when Bob made the Probowl. Ben Hawkins had a great year (59-1265-10) - led the league in receptions in 1967. Didn't make the probowl.

Where are all the arguments that Bob didn't deserve that probowl? Someone else had a really good, and arguably better year. Cuts both ways.

Look harder your obvious bias is showing. Hayes outperformed the other WRs chosen over him, in every category but catches in both 1970 and 1971. Unless you trying to tell me that double, even triple the number of touchdowns is not significant?

Yet in 1970, guys like Danny Abramowicz (55-906-5) and Charlie Taylor (42-593-8) had good years as did John Gilliam (45-952-5). Hayes didn't outperform Abramowicz or Gilliam on catches OR yards.

In 71, Ken Burrow had good #s (33-741-6) as did Gilliam (42-837-3). Very similar catch and reception #s to Bob.

No one is crying these guys a river. Why? B/c there were lots of borderline guys back then. That Bob didn't make it just says that really, there were not so many dominant WRs in 70 and 71.

It was YOUR contention that run oriented teams did not deserve to send WR representatives to the pro bowl, I just naturally extended your theory to QBs. So it is very convenient of you to leave out your explanation as to why Irvin and Aikman were pro bowl worthy but Hayes was not . You know, Thumper put the stats for everyone to see, Hayes had "the numbers" too. Hayes clearly was more deserving (at the very least, just as deserving) than Willie Richardson, Carroll Dale, Rick Gordon and Gene Washington in '68, '70 and '71.

No, my contention was that a run oriented team's WR isn't as valuable to the team since he is involved in fewer plays. There is simply no way around the fact that if you run most of the time, your WRs aren't going to get the ball. And if you don't have the ball, it is pretty hard to put up the sort of #s that are going to get your in the probowl.

Again, you can cry "just as deserving" - but that doesn't mean bias.

Are you really a Cowboys fan? Serious question.

Yes, but I am a fan who refuses to engaged in all of the victim mentality conspiracy theories.

 

[THUMPER]

Didn't say he wasn't worthy. Lots of worthy guys miss - In fact, in 1967 when Bob made the Probowl. Ben Hawkins had a great year (59-1265-10) - led the league in receptions in 1967. Didn't make the probowl.

Where are all the arguments that Bob didn't deserve that probowl? Someone else had a really good, and arguably better year. Cuts both ways.

Hawkins SHOULD have gone to the PB that year but Jack Snow is the guy he should have replaced, not Bob Hayes. I'll leave it to Eagles fans to bring up their players. You can look up Snow's stats and tell the Eagles fans why he went and Hawkins didn't.

Yet in 1970, guys like Danny Abramowicz (55-906-5) and Charlie Taylor (42-593-8) had good years as did John Gilliam (45-952-5). Hayes didn't outperform Abramowicz or Gilliam on catches OR yards.

Maybe not but he had more TDs and a higher average. You seem to want to limit what is measured so that you can support your stance but it doesn't work that way. If it were strictly by receptions and yards then why didn't Ben Hawkins go in 1967?

In 71, Ken Burrow had good #s (33-741-6) as did Gilliam (42-837-3). Very similar catch and reception #s to Bob.

Burrow was 100 yards lower than Hayes, and Gilliam had less than half as many TDs, how is that "similar"? Once again, you want to ONLY count receptions, I wonder why.

No one is crying these guys a river. Why? B/c there were lots of borderline guys back then. That Bob didn't make it just says that really, there were not so many dominant WRs in 70 and 71.

Like I said, the fans of their teams can make those arguments for them. My point is that a number of players who were selected to the PB didn't deserve it as much as Hayes did. The fact that there might have been others as, or even more, deserving in no way refutes my point.

No, my contention was that a run oriented team's WR isn't as valuable to the team since he is involved in fewer plays. There is simply no way around the fact that if you run most of the time, your WRs aren't going to get the ball. And if you don't have the ball, it is pretty hard to put up the sort of #s that are going to get your in the probowl.

Well, your contention is wrong, that's all. Or more accurately, it is simply YOUR OPINION and it is based on flawed assumptions.

Again, you can cry "just as deserving" - but that doesn't mean bias.

Yes, but I am a fan who refuses to engaged in all of the victim mentality conspiracy theories.

You can call it that if you want to but I'm just pointing out the facts here.

 

[AbeBeta]

Hawkins SHOULD have gone to the PB that year but Jack Snow is the guy he should have replaced, not Bob Hayes. I'll leave it to Eagles fans to bring up their players. You can look up Snow's stats and tell the Eagles fans why he went and Hawkins didn't.

Point is you can always find deserving guys who don't make the cut. If there was truly bias against Hayes then why would Hawkins get the snub instead of Bullet?

Maybe not but he had more TDs and a higher average. You seem to want to limit what is measured so that you can support your stance but it doesn't work that way.

So more TD and higher YPC trumps more receptions and more yards? None of those guys were overall, substantially better than the other.

Burrow was 100 yards lower than Hayes, and Gilliam had less than half as many TDs, how is that "similar"? Once again, you want to ONLY count receptions, I wonder why.

Again, you can look at receptions, you can look at yards, you can look at TDs. None of these guys was far better than the other.

Like I said, the fans of their teams can make those arguments for them. My point is that a number of players who were selected to the PB didn't deserve it as much as Hayes did. The fact that there might have been others as, or even more, deserving in no way refutes my point.

The fact that there were other deserving players completely destroys your argument that Bob got hosed. Getting hosed means you were treated differently than others. Others with similar performances ended up with the same outcomes.

Well, your contention is wrong, that's all. Or more accurately, it is simply YOUR OPINION and it is based on flawed assumptions.

You can call it that if you want to but I'm just pointing out the facts here.

My contention that a WR in a run oriented offense gets the ball less is wrong? I see.

 

[THUMPER]

Point is you can always find deserving guys who don't make the cut. If there was truly bias against Hayes then why would Hawkins get the snub instead of Bullet?

In 1967 Bob Hayes was: 4th in Rec Yards, 3rd in Rec TDs, 7th in avg, 5th in rec yards per game, & 6th in total TDs. In short, he earned his spot on the PB roster.
As I said, Hawkins should have gone but for some reason they picked Jack Snow instead even though he had very pedestrian stats except in... yards per reception.

If it were just a single season that Hayes was snubbed I wouldn't make an issue out of it but it was 3 seasons where he had performed significantly better than some of the guys who were selected.

Why is this such a difficult concept for you?

So more TD and higher YPC trumps more receptions and more yards? None of those guys were overall, substantially better than the other.

No, you brought up 2 stats as "similar" to Hayes but ignored the others, so I brought them up for you to show that in fact those two players were NOT similar in overall performance to Hayes.

Again, you can look at receptions, you can look at yards, you can look at TDs. None of these guys was far better than the other.

Hayes was significantly better than those guys when you look at EVERYTHING. You seem to think that if Hayes had 35 catches and player-Y had 40 then they are similar, but they're not. You cannot simply pick and choose what stats you will compare and which ones you will throw out because they don't fit your agenda. Again, it doesn't work that way.

The fact that there were other deserving players completely destroys your argument that Bob got hosed. Getting hosed means you were treated differently than others. Others with similar performances ended up with the same outcomes.

No actually it doesn't. As I stated above, if this were an isolated incident then there would be no case of bias, but this happened 3 times and there were multiple players who had performed far below the level of Hayes in each of those seasons.

My contention that a WR in a run oriented offense gets the ball less is wrong? I see.

That's not what you said. You said that a WR in a run oriented offense was less valuable to that offense and that is simply not true.

Here's your quote:

No, my contention was that a run oriented team's WR isn't as valuable to the team since he is involved in fewer plays. There is simply no way around the fact that if you run most of the time, your WRs aren't going to get the ball. And if you don't have the ball, it is pretty hard to put up the sort of #s that are going to get your in the probowl.

I am done arguing with you on this. You believe what you want to believe and refuse to listen to reason even from multiple sources (BAT also said the same things I did).