Bob Hayes was screwed all along

[AbeBeta]

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?

Because your "significantly better" argument is not justified. he was pretty good, just not great. The first time he missed, you've got a point with. The 2nd and 3rd he really didn't perform much better than others and didn't get his hands on the ball much.

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.

Gee, just like your initial argument where you ignore receptions in both 70 and 71?

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.

They are similar stats - Hayes had better stats in one area, other better in the others. Fact remains. Bob didn't get the ball much in 70 and 71 - tough to make it when you don't get the ball.

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.

Fact is it was an isolated incident. He was better in 1966, he wasn't significantly better in 70 and 71. When you add in that lots of guys with great #s get passed over every year, it makes it clear it ain't isolated.

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.

Well, duh. You have the ball less, you are less valuable.

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).

And if you want to continue to wear your foil hat and worry about conspiracies you just go ahead.

 

[THUMPER]

One last thing I forgot to mention about Bob Hayes in 1968 was that he was named 1st team All-Pro by 3 different sources: AP, Sporting News, & NY Daily as well as 2nd team All-Pro by UPI.

He also returned 2 punts for TDs and led the league in punt return average with 20.8! For comparison, Adam Jones had a 4.5 yard average last season.

Throw his punt return ability in and he was WAY better than Carroll Dale and Willie Richardson, neither of whom were named to the AP All-Pro team that season (not even to the 2nd team).

I can't figure out why they loved Carroll Dale so much. His season bests were: 49 receptions in 1970, 879 yards in 1969, & 8 TDs in 1968. He made the PB all 3 years. He just wasn't all that.

 

[AbeBeta]

One last thing I forgot to mention about Bob Hayes in 1968 was that he was named 1st team All-Pro by 3 different sources: AP, Sporting News, & NY Daily as well as 2nd team All-Pro by UPI.

He was .. which is why I agree with your 68 assessment. The problem is that your 70 and 71 arguments suck.

 

[BAT]

He was .. which is why I agree with your 68 assessment. The problem is that your 70 and 71 arguments suck.

I guess Thumper can now wear his foil hat happily ever after since you FINALLY agreed with his stance that Hayes was unjustly left off the pro bowl team in 1968, even though Hayes was did not "substantially" or "greatly" outpreform the other WRs chosen based on your subjective criteria (or even those not chosen, ie Rentzel or Snow) and/or he was playing for a run oriented offense that he was not of great value to.


Talk about arguments that suck.

 

[burmafrd]

Clearly someone just hates the Bullett. There is no way he would be going to so much trouble otherwise. He calls himself a fan. What a joke.

 

[THUMPER]

He was .. which is why I agree with your 68 assessment. The problem is that your 70 and 71 arguments suck.

You know what's interesting about the 1970 & 71 PBs? The NFC had one fewer WR than the AFC did both times.

In 1970 there were 5 WRs on the AFC squad and 4 for the NFC.
In 1971 there were 4 WRs on the AFC squad and 3 for the NFC.

I don't know why that is or were/whether it was made up at another position, I just find it strange.

I also find it strange that you think my arguments suck when I have consistently defended them with facts while all you have are your opinions.

All I did was to postulate that Hayes was not selected when players with lesser success were named to the PB.

The FACT that in 1971 Hayes had more yards than two of the NFC PB WRs and more TDs than any of the three doesn't say anything I guess. And that was done on about 10 fewer receptions. None of the NFC WRs had more than 46 receptions on the year so it's not like we are talking about guys with 70 catches here.

In 1970 Hayes had more yards and TDs than 2 of the 4 WRs on the NFC squad. He also had the highest average per reception in the league. We're not talking about some marginal player here but a top receiver. Nether of the other two guys were in the top-5 in any category.

Again, for the learning impaired, all I am saying is that it seems strange to me that Hayes was snubbed for the PB 3 times when he had better success than a number of receivers that were selected. Not sure why this is such a difficult concept for you to grasp.

 

[coach316]

Quote:
Originally Posted by THUMPER View Post
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.

If I'm reading your arguments against Hayes correctly, you're intimating that because he didn't have high enough reception totals and that his higher yardage and TD totals are irrelevant.

If you applied that thinking to the running back, then a back with 300 carries and 900 yards would be more deserving than a back with 250 carries and 1200 yards.

Sorry, but I'd rather take the receiver that can give me more production with the least amount of catches required to produce it.

 

[burmafrd]

especially in an era when there was a lot more running then passing. A WR that can give you TDs and a higher yard per catch is MUCH more valuable.