Bettis = Hall Of Famer? (1 Viewer)

[RC94]

Sustained excellence is probably the greatest accomlishment there is. 

Tell it to the Art Monk haters on the HoF committee.

 

[madsklz]

The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round. The wheels on the bus go round and round, , all through Canton..

 

[David Yudkin]

I forgot to add that ranking in the Top 10 all-time in a category is not a guarantee to get you anything.Receiving yards:Ellard #4Reed #6Fryar #8Monk #9Passing Yards:Testaverde #6Bledsoe #7

 

[Jimmy James]

I forgot to add that ranking in the Top 10 all-time in a category is not a guarantee to get you anything.(good receiving yards info omitted)Passing Yards:Testaverde #6Bledsoe #7

Isn't it a bit premature to bring these two up? Neither of them are HoF eligble to my knowledge.

 

[David Yudkin]

I forgot to add that ranking in the Top 10 all-time in a category is not a guarantee to get you anything.

(good receiving yards info omitted)

Passing Yards:

Testaverde #6

Bledsoe #7

Isn't it a bit premature to bring these two up? Neither of them are HoF eligble to my knowledge.

Does anyone really consider these two as legit HOF candidates no matter what they do from here on out?

 

[Jimmy James]

I forgot to add that ranking in the Top 10 all-time in a category is not a guarantee to get you anything.

(good receiving yards info omitted)

Passing Yards:

Testaverde #6

Bledsoe #7

Isn't it a bit premature to bring these two up? Neither of them are HoF eligble to my knowledge.

Does anyone really consider these two as legit HOF candidates no matter what they do from here on out?

I haven't really studied them, but I expect almost anything out of the QB-crazy HoF committee.

 

[Bri]

I forgot to add that ranking in the Top 10 all-time in a category is not a guarantee to get you anything.

(good receiving yards info omitted)

Passing Yards:

Testaverde #6

Bledsoe #7

Isn't it a bit premature to bring these two up? Neither of them are HoF eligble to my knowledge.

Does anyone really consider these two as legit HOF candidates no matter what they do from here on out?

Will Parcells win a Supe in Dallas?If so Drew's already been on two Supe teams.

 

[-OZ-]

They had much more similar careers than Holmes and Bettis. Look at them year by year and the similarities are obvious. The main difference is that in their 3 great years (both only had 3), Davis had more yards, but Holmes had more TDs. However, Davis does have the Super Bowl rings (and Super Bowl MVP if I remember correctly), which seems to mean a lot to some people. I don't think it is such an open and shut case between Davis and Holmes.

My point is obviously being lost on people. I am not saying Priest and Bettis are similar, I'm saying they're opposites, but both will be considered for the HOF. The arguments for Bus are those that will be made against Priest, and vice versa. I don't know how to make this any clearer.As for Priest / TD, they are similar, but Priest had the better career.

 

[Blackjacks]

They had much more similar careers than Holmes and Bettis. Look at them year by year and the similarities are obvious. The main difference is that in their 3 great years (both only had 3), Davis had more yards, but Holmes had more TDs. However, Davis does have the Super Bowl rings (and Super Bowl MVP if I remember correctly), which seems to mean a lot to some people. I don't think it is such an open and shut case between Davis and Holmes.

My point is obviously being lost on people. I am not saying Priest and Bettis are similar, I'm saying they're opposites, but both will be considered for the HOF. The arguments for Bus are those that will be made against Priest, and vice versa. I don't know how to make this any clearer.As for Priest / TD, they are similar, but Priest had the better career.

The only way Priest was better was TD's. How many yards, playoff wins, superbowls, superbowl mvp's did Holmes have? Your opinion is cool but I disagree.

 

[RC94]

They had much more similar careers than Holmes and Bettis.  Look at them year by year and the similarities are obvious.  The main difference is that in their 3 great years (both only had 3), Davis had more yards, but Holmes had more TDs.  However, Davis does have the Super Bowl rings (and Super Bowl MVP if I remember correctly), which seems to mean a lot to some people.  I don't think it is such an open and shut case between Davis and Holmes.

My point is obviously being lost on people. I am not saying Priest and Bettis are similar, I'm saying they're opposites, but both will be considered for the HOF. The arguments for Bus are those that will be made against Priest, and vice versa. I don't know how to make this any clearer.As for Priest / TD, they are similar, but Priest had the better career.

I don't know how to make this clearer, but Holmes did not necessarily have the better career. It's as simple as looking at the yearly stats and the Super Bowl ring and MVP count.

 

[-OZ-]

I just wonder how many people would put Priest in but not Bettis or vice versa, opposite sides of the same coin.

How are Priest and Bettis on the same coin? One guy has had a great, long career and the other got lucky towards the end of his career to run behind a great line in a superior offense. Not saying Priest wasn't a stud, he definetly was but his career and the Bus's have nothing in common.

Ah, Priest "got lucky" ok then. The answer is simply they are both borderline HOFers who will have the opposite arguments going for and against them when the time for voting comes.

I think when Priest was a undrafted FA out of college and then was never a everyday starter in Balt. that he got very lucky to end up behind that line in KC. Like I said early (Not saying Priest wasn't a stud) but he ended up in a very good situation which had alot of luck to do with it. I think the system and the line had alot more to do with the GREAT 3 year stretch he had than his talents. Again no disrespect to Priest but his results=a great line and offense.

Fair enough, but if you want to head down that road, there's a helluva lot of "lucky" players in the HOF. His results = a great line, offense and a great fit for that offense.

Of course, Bettis in KC...

 

[-OZ-]

They had much more similar careers than Holmes and Bettis. Look at them year by year and the similarities are obvious. The main difference is that in their 3 great years (both only had 3), Davis had more yards, but Holmes had more TDs. However, Davis does have the Super Bowl rings (and Super Bowl MVP if I remember correctly), which seems to mean a lot to some people. I don't think it is such an open and shut case between Davis and Holmes.

My point is obviously being lost on people. I am not saying Priest and Bettis are similar, I'm saying they're opposites, but both will be considered for the HOF. The arguments for Bus are those that will be made against Priest, and vice versa. I don't know how to make this any clearer.As for Priest / TD, they are similar, but Priest had the better career.

I don't know how to make this clearer, but Holmes did not necessarily have the better career. It's as simple as looking at the yearly stats and the Super Bowl ring and MVP count.

How about if we just agree to disagree?Yes, the SB rings are important. Just keep in mind they aren't just from TD. He had Elway and a better defense than anything Priest had going for him. It isn't as easy as to say "SB ring = better career" either. (I won't mention Dilfer vs. Marino )

 

[Blackjacks]

I just wonder how many people would put Priest in but not Bettis or vice versa, opposite sides of the same coin.

How are Priest and Bettis on the same coin? One guy has had a great, long career and the other got lucky towards the end of his career to run behind a great line in a superior offense. Not saying Priest wasn't a stud, he definetly was but his career and the Bus's have nothing in common.

Ah, Priest "got lucky" ok then. The answer is simply they are both borderline HOFers who will have the opposite arguments going for and against them when the time for voting comes.

I think when Priest was a undrafted FA out of college and then was never a everyday starter in Balt. that he got very lucky to end up behind that line in KC. Like I said early (Not saying Priest wasn't a stud) but he ended up in a very good situation which had alot of luck to do with it. I think the system and the line had alot more to do with the GREAT 3 year stretch he had than his talents. Again no disrespect to Priest but his results=a great line and offense.

Fair enough, but if you want to head down that road, there's a helluva lot of "lucky" players in the HOF. His results = a great line, offense and a great fit for that offense.

Of course, Bettis in KC...

He played the hand he was dealt very good, I agree with you. I just don't personally consider him a hall of famer.

 

[-OZ-]

The only way Priest was better was TD's. How many yards, playoff wins, superbowls, superbowl mvp's did Holmes have? Your opinion is cool but I disagree.

Check your stats, Holmes,Priest | 108 | 1734 8035 86 | 334 2945 8 |

Davis,Terrell | 81 | 1655 7607 60 | 169 1280 5 |

Priest had 400 more rushing yards and almost 1700 more receiving yards.

Agreed on the playoffs, care to evaluate the teams?

Anyway, now that we've hijacked this enough to warrant it's own thread, neither Priest or TD should be in the HOF. I don't recall saying he should be, just that there's an argument there.

 

[Tau837]

I forgot to add that ranking in the Top 10 all-time in a category is not a guarantee to get you anything.

Receiving yards:

Ellard #4

Reed #6

Fryar #8

Monk #9

Passing Yards:

Testaverde #6

Bledsoe #7

It isn't exactly clear what you are implying. Are you pointing out that these guys aren't in, despite their rankings? Or are you saying they will not ultimately get in despite their rankings? The first line of thinking isn't valid, since this was the first year of eligibility for Fryar & Reed, and the third year for Ellard, and neither Testaverde nor Bledsoe are yet eligible.I expect Ellard has no chance, mainly because he has no other compelling qualifications besides his rank in receiving yards (which is #5, by the way, not #4).

IMO Reed will make it, and I expect Monk will as well. I think Fryar was close, but not quite there and will not make it.

I think Vinny has no shot, since he just never excelled despite his impressive longevity. IMO Bledsoe has an outside chance, but the odds are definitely against him.

As for Bettis, he is in IMO, and deservedly so.

 

[Luka_shocked28]

I've given my opinion on Bettis many times, and count me in the camp of Bettis belongs in the Hall of Very Good.

I'm pretty sure Bettis will get in, but I wouldn't jump at the chance to vote for him if given a vote.

Players that played in the Bettis era include:

Emmitt Smith

Thurman Thomas

Barry Sanders

Marcus Allen

Herschel Walker

Ricky Watters

Marshall Faulk

Curtis Martin

Terrell Davis

Eddie George

Corey Dillon

Edgerrin James

Jamal Lewis

Ahman Green

Tiki Barber

LaDainian Tomlinson

Priest Holmes

Shaun Alexander

Clinton Portis

Ricky Williams

Larry Johnson

I started a thread a few weeks ago breaking down RB by decade, and the HOF had inducted at most 9 RB from any given decade (including any player who had played AT ALL in that decade).

Obviously not all of those RB will make the HOF, and some of them are borderline at best. But when you arrange the RB and decide who truly was "great" and who was "very good," in my mind there are a lot of RB that I would induct before Bettis.

In today's game, 1,000 yards rushing gets you in the Top 15-20. Given that, 1,200 yards is now a better barometer for a Top 10 season in terms of rushing yards. And plenty of RB score double digit TDs each year.

Bettis has had 4 seasons with 1,200 rushing yards and 2 seasons with 10 or more TD. Basically, Clinton Portis has done more in 4 seasons in terms of top seasons than Bettis did in 13.

Not to slight The Bus, as he was very good for many years. But was he truly one of the all-time greats of his era?

how many of those guys have more yards and tds?

 

[Ghost Rider]

If Holmes is a Hall of Famer, then Terrell Davis definitely is as well.

I really don't mean to hijack this, but I hope you aren't saying Davis > Priest.Davis: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/DaviTe00.htm

Rushes: 1996-3, 1997-2, 1998-2

Rushing yards: 1995-9, 1996-2, 1997-2, 1998-1

Rushing TDs: 1996-3t, 1997-1t, 1998-1

Yards from scrimmage: 1996-2, 1997-2, 1998-2

Rush/Receive TDs: 1996-3t, 1997-2, 1998-1

Among the league's all-time top 50

Rushes: 48

Rushing yards: 39

Rushing TDs: 35

Davis isn't a top 30 in any category all-time, top 50 in only 3.

Priest: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/HolmPr00.htm

Seasons among the league's top 10

Rushes: 2001-5, 2002-7, 2003-9

Rushing yards: 2001-1, 2002-3, 2003-9

Rushing TDs: 2002-1, 2003-1, 2004-3

Yards from scrimmage: 2001-1, 2002-1, 2003-5

Rush/Receive TDs: 2001-10t, 2002-1, 2003-1, 2004-4t

Among the league's all-time top 50

Rushes: 40

Rushing yards: 33

Rushing TDs: 13

Yards from scrimmage: 44

Rush/Receive TDs: 21t

Top 50 in 5, #13 in TDs.

Perhaps neither should get in, but Priest > Davis.

You are out of your mind. Larry Johnson had a better season this past year than Holmes ever had and he didn't even start every game! Now, I realize multiple RB's have been productive in Denver's offense since Davis' departure, but none of them ever achieved the heights that he did (2000 yard season, regular season MVP, Super Bowl MVP). Oh, and Davis' playoff YPC in eight games is 5.7.

5.7!!!!!

That is nothing short of ridiculously good. That tops everything and anything Priest Holmes ever did.

And I really don't feel like having the Bettis HoF argument again, so I am staying out of that. For now...

 

[David Yudkin]

I forgot to add that ranking in the Top 10 all-time in a category is not a guarantee to get you anything.

Receiving yards:

Ellard #4

Reed #6

Fryar #8

Monk #9

Passing Yards:

Testaverde #6

Bledsoe #7

It isn't exactly clear what you are implying. Are you pointing out that these guys aren't in, despite their rankings? Or are you saying they will not ultimately get in despite their rankings? The first line of thinking isn't valid, since this was the first year of eligibility for Fryar & Reed, and the third year for Ellard, and neither Testaverde nor Bledsoe are yet eligible.I expect Ellard has no chance, mainly because he has no other compelling qualifications besides his rank in receiving yards (which is #5, by the way, not #4).

IMO Reed will make it, and I expect Monk will as well. I think Fryar was close, but not quite there and will not make it.

I think Vinny has no shot, since he just never excelled despite his impressive longevity. IMO Bledsoe has an outside chance, but the odds are definitely against him.

As for Bettis, he is in IMO, and deservedly so.

My point was in reference to others that felt that being Top 5 or Top 10 in a key category was a free pass into the HOF.Part of what will be a recurring problem in the future will be stat creep--the bar is going to be raised by the time the players in general wait it out to be inducted. So someone that's Top 5 today might be Top 10 by the time the votes are tallied.

And remember, if you say Bettis is in, YOU HAVE to say Corey Dillon would be in if he gets the same 2,900 total yards playing out the string that Bettis did.

Through their first 9 seasons:

Bettis 10,876 rushing yards, 53 rushing TD, 1,220 receiving yards, 3 receiving TD

12,096 total yards

Dillon: 10,429 rushing yards, 69 rushing TD, 1,766 receiving yards, 7 receiving TD

12,195 total yards

IMO, these two are very similar, and you can't say yes to one and not the other (provided Dillon hangs around and tacks on some additional yardage).

 

[Jimmy James]

You are out of your mind. Larry Johnson had a better season this past year than Holmes ever had and he didn't even start every game! Now, I realize multiple RB's have been productive in Denver's offense since Davis' departure, but none of them ever achieved the heights that he did (2000 yard season, regular season MVP, Super Bowl MVP).

Which of those Denver backs had John Elway handing the ball to them?It's kind of hard to compare Gary/Anderson/Portis/Droughns/Bell/Griffin/Dayne to Davis because of that, isn't it?Remember, we can also look to Davis's stats in the post-Elway era. Of course, you have to interpret how much of that is knee injury and how much is no Elway.

 

[pinequick]

he'll get in but he probably shouldn't. he's always been a good player but he's never been great. i think it's pretty safe to say that he's never been included in the top 5 running backs at any time during his career. longevity is only thing that's really going for him.

Longevity is not common among running backs. This is a HUGE reason why he'll get in.

longevity is nice but it doesn't make you great. i guess i've got a different opinion on the hall of fame than you...it should be filled with great players, not just pretty good that stuck around a long time.

I agree with this idea. Now mind you, this is a hypothetical, but bear with me. Ray Brown just retired this year after 20 NFL seasons. Now let's say I was some mythical RB, who managed to pound out a meager 45 yards per game, for 16 games, for 20 years. Thats a whole 720 yards per season. But that would make me the 4th leading rusher in NFL history. Do I deserve to be in the Hall of FAME because I could hang on for 20 seasons?

 

[Capella]

Stone-cold lock. No question about it.

 

[Ghost Rider]

You are out of your mind. Larry Johnson had a better season this past year than Holmes ever had and he didn't even start every game! Now, I realize multiple RB's have been productive in Denver's offense since Davis' departure, but none of them ever achieved the heights that he did (2000 yard season, regular season MVP, Super Bowl MVP).

Which of those Denver backs had John Elway handing the ball to them?It's kind of hard to compare Gary/Anderson/Portis/Droughns/Bell/Griffin/Dayne to Davis because of that, isn't it?

Remember, we can also look to Davis's stats in the post-Elway era. Of course, you have to interpret how much of that is knee injury and how much is no Elway.

Davis also produced in the '98 season when Elway missed three games due to injury. In those three games (when Bubby Brister started), Davis ran for 398 yards (a higher per-game average than in the other 13 games when Elway played) and 4 touchdowns. Given that, it is obvious Davis could produce w/o Elway in the lineup.In '99, the entire offense struggled early as Brian Griese was basically in as a rookie QB. Davis got hurt in the 4th game and missed the rest of the season. He was never the same, so it is hard to compare his numbers from that point on to the numbers pre-1999. All we have are the three games in '98 to compare and he proved without a shadow of a doubt that, when healthy, he could still play at a high level and put up big numbers without Elway behind center.

 

[trader jake]

Bettis = Hall Of Famer?, Yes or No?

YES

 

[Jimmy James]

I agree with this idea. Now mind you, this is a hypothetical, but bear with me. Ray Brown just retired this year after 20 NFL seasons. Now let's say I was some mythical RB, who managed to pound out a meager 45 yards per game, for 16 games, for 20 years. Thats a whole 720 yards per season. But that would make me the 4th leading rusher in NFL history. Do I deserve to be in the Hall of FAME because I could hang on for 20 seasons?

If you ask me, you certainly do. That's what I don't get about the Art Monk situation. Longevity in a game like football is truly amazing in my book. Carving out a 20 year career at any position in a game where the average career is so short should make almost anyone a hall of famer. I think the exceptions are clearly K, P, and anyone who doesn't play a lot during a substantial portion of that career (a hypothetical 20 year backup QB who sees action in 50 games over his career).

 

[David Yudkin]

I agree with this idea.  Now mind you, this is a hypothetical, but bear with me.  Ray Brown just retired this year after 20 NFL seasons.  Now let's say I was some mythical RB, who managed to pound out a meager 45 yards per game, for 16 games, for 20 years.  Thats a whole 720 yards per season.  But that would make me the 4th leading rusher in NFL history.  Do I deserve to be in the Hall of FAME because I could hang on for 20 seasons?

If you ask me, you certainly do. That's what I don't get about the Art Monk situation. Longevity in a game like football is truly amazing in my book. Carving out a 20 year career at any position in a game where the average career is so short should make almost anyone a hall of famer. I think the exceptions are clearly K, P, and anyone who doesn't play a lot during a substantial portion of that career (a hypothetical 20 year backup QB who sees action in 50 games over his career).

Based on your description, Vinny Testaverde would be a mortal lock. But explain to me when Vinny was even above average in his career.I'll save you the trouble. Vinny had two very good years (96 BAL and 98 NYJ). He also had a year with 13 TD and 35 INT. (To be fair, he had a few seasons that weren't bad but no one would confuse hum with Favre, Marino, or Brady.)

Do we really want to clutter the HOF with the essence of players like Testaverde?

 

[Jimmy James]

Davis also produced in the '98 season when Elway missed three games due to injury. In those three games (when Bubby Brister started), Davis ran for 398 yards (a higher per-game average than in the other 13 games when Elway played) and 4 touchdowns. Given that, it is obvious Davis could produce w/o Elway in the lineup.

He faced the #19, 22, and 28 defenses in those three games. Shouldn't he have carved them up?

In '99, the entire offense struggled early as Brian Griese was basically in as a rookie QB. Davis got hurt in the 4th game and missed the rest of the season.

So you're saying we have 3 games with Brister and 3 with Griese to use as a baseline? The Brister games look good, but the Griese games look brutal. It looks like he averaged 65 yards a game and scored only once out of those 3 weeks.

He was never the same, so it is hard to compare his numbers from that point on to the numbers pre-1999. All we have are the three games in '98 to compare and he proved without a shadow of a doubt that, when healthy, he could still play at a high level and put up big numbers without Elway behind center.

Why can't we consider those 1999 games? I'm missing that point.

 

[Jimmy James]

I agree with this idea.  Now mind you, this is a hypothetical, but bear with me.  Ray Brown just retired this year after 20 NFL seasons.  Now let's say I was some mythical RB, who managed to pound out a meager 45 yards per game, for 16 games, for 20 years.  Thats a whole 720 yards per season.  But that would make me the 4th leading rusher in NFL history.  Do I deserve to be in the Hall of FAME because I could hang on for 20 seasons?

If you ask me, you certainly do. That's what I don't get about the Art Monk situation. Longevity in a game like football is truly amazing in my book. Carving out a 20 year career at any position in a game where the average career is so short should make almost anyone a hall of famer. I think the exceptions are clearly K, P, and anyone who doesn't play a lot during a substantial portion of that career (a hypothetical 20 year backup QB who sees action in 50 games over his career).

Based on your description, Vinny Testaverde would be a mortal lock. But explain to me when Vinny was even above average in his career.I'll save you the trouble. Vinny had two very good years (96 BAL and 98 NYJ). He also had a year with 13 TD and 35 INT. (To be fair, he had a few seasons that weren't bad but no one would confuse hum with Favre, Marino, or Brady.)

Do we really want to clutter the HOF with the essence of players like Testaverde?

I don't think Testaverde is exactly what I'm describing. He has 5 of his 19 years in the league when he didn't even appear in half of the games. With that said, I think Testaverde does get in under my vision of the Hall. You know who absolutely, positively doesn't get in? The likes of Davis and Holmes. I'm at peace with that vision.

 

[Ghost Rider]

He faced the #19, 22, and 28 defenses in those three games. Shouldn't he have carved them up?

So you're saying we have 3 games with Brister and 3 with Griese to use as a baseline? The Brister games look good, but the Griese games look brutal. It looks like he averaged 65 yards a game and scored only once out of those 3 weeks.

Why can't we consider those 1999 games? I'm missing that point.

The '99 games were the first three games Brian Griese ever started in the NFL. You expect a RB to continue to produce at an exceptionally high level while an in-essence rookie QB is starting games? If you had watched those games, you would have seen that teams were basically stacking the line and daring Griese to beat them. As for those weak defenses in those three Elway-less games in '98, yes, he probably should have lit them up, but not only did his production stay consistent w/o Elway, it went up. And those numbers would have been a lot higher had he played the 2nd half against the Eagles (they pulled the starters at the half since they were winning 35-2).

Oh, and again, 5.7 YPC in the playoffs. 5.7!!!!!!!1

 

[cstu]

Glad to see people are finally coming around and saying that Bettis is a HOF'er. All you had to do it look at Sunday's game which the Steelers won because Bettis converted those 4th and inches. While a lot of guys could have converted those, not many RB's inspire the confidence of the coach as much as Bettis does in those situations.

 

[Jimmy James]

The '99 games were the first three games Brian Griese ever started in the NFL. You expect a RB to continue to produce at an exceptionally high level while an in-essence rookie QB is starting games? If you had watched those games, you would have seen that teams were basically stacking the line and daring Griese to beat them.

Isn't that an implicit part of your Bubby Brister argument, though? Are you telling me that the 3 teams that didn't face Elway in 1998 didn't stack the line and dare Brister to beat them?

 

[Ghost Rider]

Glad to see people are finally coming around and saying that Bettis is a HOF'er. All you had to do it look at Sunday's game which the Steelers won because Bettis converted those 4th and inches. While a lot of guys could have converted those, not many RB's inspire the confidence of the coach as much as Bettis does in those situations.

Yeah, and the Steelers were one missed Roethlisberger tackle away from losing because of an atrocious fumble by Bettis, so I wouldn't give him too much credit for Sunday's win.

 

[cstu]

Glad to see people are finally coming around and saying that Bettis is a HOF'er. All you had to do it look at Sunday's game which the Steelers won because Bettis converted those 4th and inches. While a lot of guys could have converted those, not many RB's inspire the confidence of the coach as much as Bettis does in those situations.

Yeah, and the Steelers were one missed Roethlisberger tackle away from losing because of an atrocious fumble by Bettis, so I wouldn't give him too much credit for Sunday's win.

Flukes like that happen but it doesn't change what he's done over his entire career.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Glad to see people are finally coming around and saying that Bettis is a HOF'er. All you had to do it look at Sunday's game which the Steelers won because Bettis converted those 4th and inches. While a lot of guys could have converted those, not many RB's inspire the confidence of the coach as much as Bettis does in those situations.

Yeah, and the Steelers were one missed Roethlisberger tackle away from losing because of an atrocious fumble by Bettis, so I wouldn't give him too much credit for Sunday's win.

Flukes like that happen but it doesn't change what he's done over his entire career.

A fluke? That is the second year in a row Bettis has had a potentially disasterous fumble almost cost his team a win in the divisional round. One might be a fluke. Two is a trend. And while he has had a great career, he is lucky as hell Big Ben tackled that guy or that probably would have been the last play of his career and likely the play he was most remembered for by many fans.

 

[-OZ-]

The '99 games were the first three games Brian Griese ever started in the NFL. You expect a RB to continue to produce at an exceptionally high level while an in-essence rookie QB is starting games?

In the 6 games Bettis started with a rookie QB in 2004, he gained over 100 yards in every one of them. http://nfl.com/players/playerpage/1152/gamelogs/2004

 

[-OZ-]

You are out of your mind. Larry Johnson had a better season this past year than Holmes ever had and he didn't even start every game!

Really?LJ 2005: 2093 yards, 21 TDs

Priest 2003: 2110 yards, 27 TDs

Priest 2002: 2287 yards, 24 TDs

Not to detract from LJ, he did a phenomenal job. Keep in mind, he's a top talent while O Gary and Mike Anderson have nowhere near the natural talent yet have produced in Denver's system.

 

[Blackjacks]

You are out of your mind. Larry Johnson had a better season this past year than Holmes ever had and he didn't even start every game!

Really?LJ 2005: 2093 yards, 21 TDs

Priest 2003: 2110 yards, 27 TDs

Priest 2002: 2287 yards, 24 TDs

Not to detract from LJ, he did a phenomenal job. Keep in mind, he's a top talent while O Gary and Mike Anderson have nowhere near the natural talent yet have produced in Denver's system.

Remember here that L.J. was splitting the load with Priest for what the first 5 or 6 weeks. You give Larry those touches and I think he comes real close to the #'s. Plus in the info you wrote earlier about Priest having more yards you forgot to mention how many more games he had played in. 27 games difference and only four hundred yards seperates them? If these #'s are correct I think it proves my point more I just stated it incorrectly. Davis avg. much more yards per game and the point where you mention Johnny Elway got him to the superbowl is correct but Davis got Elway the superbowl. There is no doubt the Broncos were more of a running game those last 3 years with TD. TD, in my opinion had if not the best 3 year stretch of a rb atleast a top 5 run in history.

 

[-OZ-]

You are out of your mind. Larry Johnson had a better season this past year than Holmes ever had and he didn't even start every game!

Really?LJ 2005: 2093 yards, 21 TDs

Priest 2003: 2110 yards, 27 TDs

Priest 2002: 2287 yards, 24 TDs

Not to detract from LJ, he did a phenomenal job. Keep in mind, he's a top talent while O Gary and Mike Anderson have nowhere near the natural talent yet have produced in Denver's system.

Remember here that L.J. was splitting the load with Priest for what the first 5 or 6 weeks. You give Larry those touches and I think he comes real close to the #'s. Plus in the info you wrote earlier about Priest having more yards you forgot to mention how many more games he had played in. 27 games difference and only four hundred yards seperates them? If these #'s are correct I think it proves my point more I just stated it incorrectly. Davis avg. much more yards per game and the point where you mention Johnny Elway got him to the superbowl is correct but Davis got Elway the superbowl. There is no doubt the Broncos were more of a running game those last 3 years with TD. TD, in my opinion had if not the best 3 year stretch of a rb atleast a top 5 run in history.

I'm completely aware that LJ was splitting carries with Priest. Are you aware that LJ finished with more carries in 2005 than Priest had in any year? Priest did have more "touches" once we factor in receptions. 383 in 2002 vs. 369 for LJ in '05. 14 more touches, almost 200 more yards. You do the math. Coincidently, Priest and LJ both averaged 5.2 YPC in those years.Yep, TD may have averaged more per game than Priest, no argument there. Just like he won two rings, just keep in mind that Davis was on a better team, with a better QB, with better defense, WRs, etc.

FWIW, TD's rushing average for the 4 years: 4,7, 4.5, 4.7, 5.1

Priest's: 4.8, 5.2, 4.4, 4.6

Looks pretty similar, except that Priest averaged more YPC in his top 2 years than TD.

 

[David Yudkin]

TD, in my opinion had if not the best 3 year stretch of a rb at least a top 5 run in history.

I wish you didn't go there, as now I feel inclined to look it up.Faulk 99-01:4,122 rushing yards, 2,643 receiving yards = 6,765 total yards with 59 TD1,030.5 fantasy pointsHolmes 01-03:4,590 rushing yards, 1,976 receiving yards = 6,566 total yards with 61 TD1,022.6 fantasy ppointsTomlinson 03-05:4,442 rushing yards, 1,536 receiving yards = 5,978 total yards with 55 TD (plus 4 passing TD)949.10 fantasy pointsAlexander 03-05:5,011 rushing yards, 543 receiving yards = 5,554 total yards with 64 TD939.4 fantasy pointsSmith 93-95:4,743 rushing yards, 1,130 receiving yards = 5,853 total yards with 57 TD929.3 fantasy pointsDavis 96-98:5,296 rushing yards, 814 receiving yards = 6,110 total yards with 53 TD929 fantasy pointsDickerson 83-85:5,147 rushing yards, 669 receiving yards = 5,816 total yards with 46 TD856.6 fantasy points Payton 77-79:4,857 rushing yards, 1,062 receiving yards = 5,919 total yards with 43 TD849.9 fantasy pointsAllen 83-85:3,941 rushing yards, 1,903 receiving yards = 5,844 total yards with 43 TD842.4 fantasy pointsGreen 01-03:4,510 rushing yards, 1,354 receiving yards = 5,864 total yards with 40 TD826.4 fantasy pointsSanders 89-91:4,322 rushing yards, 1,069 receiving yards = 5,391 total yards with 47 TD821.1 fantasy pointsThomas 90-92:4,191 rushing yards, 1,789 receiving yards = 5,980 total yards with 37 TD820 fantasy pointsSo based on a technicality (0.3 of a fantasy point), Davis has not had one of the Top 5 stretches over a 3-year period. But it still was an impressive 3 years nonetheless. And IIRC, a couple of the guys that were higher than Davis on this list had more than one stretch of 3-years that were better than his.

 

[Kosar]

he'll get in but he probably shouldn't. he's always been a good player but he's never been great. i think it's pretty safe to say that he's never been included in the top 5 running backs at any time during his career. longevity is only thing that's really going for him.

Longevity is not common among running backs. This is a HUGE reason why he'll get in.

longevity is nice but it doesn't make you great. i guess i've got a different opinion on the hall of fame than you...it should be filled with great players, not just pretty good that stuck around a long time.

I agree with this idea. Now mind you, this is a hypothetical, but bear with me. Ray Brown just retired this year after 20 NFL seasons. Now let's say I was some mythical RB, who managed to pound out a meager 45 yards per game, for 16 games, for 20 years. Thats a whole 720 yards per season. But that would make me the 4th leading rusher in NFL history. Do I deserve to be in the Hall of FAME because I could hang on for 20 seasons?

A running back that has played 20 seasons? Absolutely.

 

[Mr. Mojo]

In addition to the other positive comments mentioned, he is totally likeable by everyone and that helps a lot more than being a TO type player (certainly not the only reason for HOF, but it doesn't hurt).

 

[TommyGilmore]

Glad to see people are finally coming around and saying that Bettis is a HOF'er.  All you had to do it look at Sunday's game which the Steelers won because Bettis converted those 4th and inches.  While a lot of guys could have converted those, not many RB's inspire the confidence of the coach as much as Bettis does in those situations.

Yeah, and the Steelers were one missed Roethlisberger tackle away from losing being down by 4 points with 1:01 to play

Fixed for accuracy.

 

[Steelers4Life]

Glad to see people are finally coming around and saying that Bettis is a HOF'er.  All you had to do it look at Sunday's game which the Steelers won because Bettis converted those 4th and inches.  While a lot of guys could have converted those, not many RB's inspire the confidence of the coach as much as Bettis does in those situations.

Yeah, and the Steelers were one missed Roethlisberger tackle away from losing being down by 4 points with 1:01 to play

Fixed for accuracy.

Plus 3 timeouts.Everyone assumes the game is over if Harper scores, but it's not.

 

[pinequick]

he'll get in but he probably shouldn't. he's always been a good player but he's never been great. i think it's pretty safe to say that he's never been included in the top 5 running backs at any time during his career. longevity is only thing that's really going for him.

Longevity is not common among running backs. This is a HUGE reason why he'll get in.

longevity is nice but it doesn't make you great. i guess i've got a different opinion on the hall of fame than you...it should be filled with great players, not just pretty good that stuck around a long time.

I agree with this idea. Now mind you, this is a hypothetical, but bear with me. Ray Brown just retired this year after 20 NFL seasons. Now let's say I was some mythical RB, who managed to pound out a meager 45 yards per game, for 16 games, for 20 years. Thats a whole 720 yards per season. But that would make me the 4th leading rusher in NFL history. Do I deserve to be in the Hall of FAME because I could hang on for 20 seasons?

A running back that has played 20 seasons? Absolutely.

Man, I just don't *get* this line of thinking. Give me brilliant, give me the *best*, give me the most feared RB in the league for 8 years before you give me some Adrian Murrell/T.J. Duckett type who can happen to hang on for a ton of years and eek out statistics.The Hall of FAME is not just about statistics.

 

[Fiddles.]

yesshould be a poll

 

[Pittsburgh P]

Yes, for many reasons, some of which include:1. Statistics (already covered)2. One of the (if not THE) best "Big Backs" in NFL history3. Likeable, charitable, marketable, recognizable4. Long, productive careerYou can make an argument that #1 is due to #4.But you really can't argue away #2 and #3. You can claim that these are irrelevant to the Hall of Fame (especially #3), but that would be your opinion, and that opinion will probably not be shared by the voters, whether they would admit it or not.Jerome WILL be in the Hall. His performance in the remaining game(s) of this post-season will determine whether he makes it on the first ballot or not...

 

[apalmer]

he'll get in but he probably shouldn't. he's always been a good player but he's never been great. i think it's pretty safe to say that he's never been included in the top 5 running backs at any time during his career. longevity is only thing that's really going for him.

Longevity is not common among running backs. This is a HUGE reason why he'll get in.

longevity is nice but it doesn't make you great. i guess i've got a different opinion on the hall of fame than you...it should be filled with great players, not just pretty good that stuck around a long time.

I agree with this idea. Now mind you, this is a hypothetical, but bear with me. Ray Brown just retired this year after 20 NFL seasons. Now let's say I was some mythical RB, who managed to pound out a meager 45 yards per game, for 16 games, for 20 years. Thats a whole 720 yards per season. But that would make me the 4th leading rusher in NFL history. Do I deserve to be in the Hall of FAME because I could hang on for 20 seasons?

A running back that has played 20 seasons? Absolutely.

Especially one who managed to play 20 years while gaining only 45 yards per game.

 

[Jimmy James]

I could see a back gaining 80 yards a game before settling into a lengthy career as a backup where he only got 10 yards a game, but that guy doesn't get in on longevity. The longevity argument is one that is based upon playing a freakishly long time and contributing in a starting or near-starting role for the team.

 

[Kosar]

he'll get in but he probably shouldn't. he's always been a good player but he's never been great. i think it's pretty safe to say that he's never been included in the top 5 running backs at any time during his career. longevity is only thing that's really going for him.

Longevity is not common among running backs. This is a HUGE reason why he'll get in.

longevity is nice but it doesn't make you great. i guess i've got a different opinion on the hall of fame than you...it should be filled with great players, not just pretty good that stuck around a long time.

I agree with this idea. Now mind you, this is a hypothetical, but bear with me. Ray Brown just retired this year after 20 NFL seasons. Now let's say I was some mythical RB, who managed to pound out a meager 45 yards per game, for 16 games, for 20 years. Thats a whole 720 yards per season. But that would make me the 4th leading rusher in NFL history. Do I deserve to be in the Hall of FAME because I could hang on for 20 seasons?

A running back that has played 20 seasons? Absolutely.

Man, I just don't *get* this line of thinking. Give me brilliant, give me the *best*, give me the most feared RB in the league for 8 years before you give me some Adrian Murrell/T.J. Duckett type who can happen to hang on for a ton of years and eek out statistics.The Hall of FAME is not just about statistics.

OK, you said a 20 year running back, not Adrian Murrell / T.J. Duckett. Make up your mind.

 

[Kosar]

he'll get in but he probably shouldn't. he's always been a good player but he's never been great. i think it's pretty safe to say that he's never been included in the top 5 running backs at any time during his career. longevity is only thing that's really going for him.

Longevity is not common among running backs. This is a HUGE reason why he'll get in.

longevity is nice but it doesn't make you great. i guess i've got a different opinion on the hall of fame than you...it should be filled with great players, not just pretty good that stuck around a long time.

I agree with this idea. Now mind you, this is a hypothetical, but bear with me. Ray Brown just retired this year after 20 NFL seasons. Now let's say I was some mythical RB, who managed to pound out a meager 45 yards per game, for 16 games, for 20 years. Thats a whole 720 yards per season. But that would make me the 4th leading rusher in NFL history. Do I deserve to be in the Hall of FAME because I could hang on for 20 seasons?

A running back that has played 20 seasons? Absolutely.

Especially one who managed to play 20 years while gaining only 45 yards per game.

 

[pinequick]

he'll get in but he probably shouldn't. he's always been a good player but he's never been great. i think it's pretty safe to say that he's never been included in the top 5 running backs at any time during his career. longevity is only thing that's really going for him.

Longevity is not common among running backs. This is a HUGE reason why he'll get in.

longevity is nice but it doesn't make you great. i guess i've got a different opinion on the hall of fame than you...it should be filled with great players, not just pretty good that stuck around a long time.

I agree with this idea. Now mind you, this is a hypothetical, but bear with me. Ray Brown just retired this year after 20 NFL seasons. Now let's say I was some mythical RB, who managed to pound out a meager 45 yards per game, for 16 games, for 20 years. Thats a whole 720 yards per season. But that would make me the 4th leading rusher in NFL history. Do I deserve to be in the Hall of FAME because I could hang on for 20 seasons?

A running back that has played 20 seasons? Absolutely.

Man, I just don't *get* this line of thinking. Give me brilliant, give me the *best*, give me the most feared RB in the league for 8 years before you give me some Adrian Murrell/T.J. Duckett type who can happen to hang on for a ton of years and eek out statistics.The Hall of FAME is not just about statistics.

OK, you said a 20 year running back, not Adrian Murrell / T.J. Duckett. Make up your mind.

That's *exactly* the type of back we would be talking about--nothing special, just one who played for a long time (in our story). You would make them Hall of Famers (based on longevity alone). I wouldn't.