Jimmy James
Footballguy
That's what he's doing. He's just normalizing the stats to per game (roughly) to account for the 14 game season.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Terrell Davis, HOF Candidate (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Chase Stuart
- Start date
PhilLynott
Footballguy
I stand corrected. I didn't specify four complete seasons. TD only played 17 games total his last three years which only adds more weight to his HOF value being front loaded. TD, realistically, had 4 years of Hall material. Compared to the names that I mentioned earlier, TD falls short. TD had 4 years over 1100 yards. Barry had 10. 9 of those were over 1300 yards. Jim brown won 8 rushing titles, TD won 1. Emmitt had 18 td's or more in 3 out of 4 years. TD had more than 18 td's once.
TD just didn't do enough to warrant induction. I personally would have a hard time voting for Shaun Alexander and his career is pretty impressive.
Last edited by a moderator:
SSOG
Moderator
Holmes has a similar statistical profile, but Davis has two SB more SB rings (I'm not counting Holmes' ring in Baltimore because he was a backup), one more SBMVP, 1 more AP OPoY, and a league MVP.In my mind, there are three arguments for Davis's candidacy. The first is his statistical dominance, the second is his postseason dominance, and the third is his awards and honors. Without all three, his position would be pretty shaky... but when you combine the three, it amounts to a very solid candidacy. If you look at the RBs who have as many top-5 finishes in key statistical categories, you find that Davis consistently finishes in the "HoF-caliber tier". If you look at the players (regardless of position) who have Davis' postseason resume, you find that Davis consistently finishes in the "HoF-caliber tier". If you look at the players (regardless of position) who have Davis's trophy case (league MVP, SB MVP, 2x PoY, 3x 1AP), you'll find that Davis consistently finishes in the "HoF-caliber tier".
If Chris Johnson rushes for 1500 yards next year, he'll still be 1 first-team AP All Pro behind Davis, 1 League MVP behind Davis, and likely 1 Offensive PoY behind Davis (because 1500 yards next year won't win him an OPoY award). He may or may not match Davis's SBMVP, but there's no way in hell he's matching Davis's postseason dominance. Terrible comparison- that's like asking of Davis would be a HoFer if you stripped away 25% of his awards, half of his career, 1 SB ring, and his defining characteristic (the postseason dominance). No, Davis wouldn't be if you did that. At the same time, if you took away half of Marino's passing yards, he probably wouldn't be a HoFer, either.
Chase did mention that Davis was 14th in "career yards over 1,000" and 8th in his RB dominance metric (which rewards career length).
Why can't we? We always do it when we're talking about Ken Anderson, Joe Montana, and Steve Young, don't we? Or does everyone think it's a coincidence that the three QBs who learned the WCO under Bill Walsh all wind up ranking among the top 7 QBs in history?
SSOG
Moderator
You make a very, very compelling argument that Terrell Davis was no Barry Sanders, Jim Brown, or Emmitt Smith. Of course, since those are widely considered the 3 greatest RBs of all time (maybe throw Walter Peyton and O.J. Simpson into the mix for good measure), that's not a particularly damning referendum on his HoF candidacy. That'd be like saying "Marvin Harrison only had 8 1,000 yard seasons, while Jerry Rice had 14, so clearly Marvin Harrison isn't a HoFer!"There are plenty of backs whose careers were nowhere near as spectacular as Sanders/Brown/Smith but who were still Hall of Fame caliber backs.
Tau837
Footballguy
This is really the crux of the issue. I personally think Martin and Bettis are more deserving, and I think longevity is underrated in general.In Martin's best 4 seasons, he had 6161 rushing yards, 41 rushing TDs, 1085 receiving yards, and 3 receiving TDs... 7246/44 total.In Davis's best 4 seasons, he had 6413 rushing yards, 56 rushing TDs, 1181 receiving yards, and 5 receiving TDs... 7594/61 total.Clearly, Davis's numbers were considerably better. But how to account for the difference in their situations? Davis played in the excellent Denver ZBS with multiple HOFers (Elway and Zimmerman so far with Sharpe a lock to make it IMO) and for a likely HOF coach... Martin had 2 of his best 4 seasons for Parcells, another likely HOF coach, but his other 2 were for Herman Edwards... and I'm not aware Martin played with any HOF teammates.Then there is Davis's postseason performance, which Martin can't touch. But Martin was no slouch - 1100 YFS and 8 TDs in 10 postseason games. I certainly don't think he was the reason his teams didn't have more postseason success.Here is the rub. Other than Davis's best 4 seasons, he posted 1293 YFS and 4 TDs over 3 seasons. Compare that to Martin's 10,184 YFS and 56 TDs over 7 seasons. That is a huge value to Martin's teams that more than offsets Davis's advantages IMO. I don't think it's even close.IMO Martin is definitely deserving and Davis definitely isn't.I think Bettis is borderline, but I think he gets in.In Bettis's best 4 seasons, he had 5866/33 rushing and only 573/2 receiving... 6439/35 total. In his other 9 seasons, he totaled 8672/59 (rushing and receiving). It's harder to justify him over Davis, but I can see the argument. Regardless of the merit, I expect he'll get in.
moleculo
Footballguy
you could of just said "I value compilers more than clearly dominant postseasons" and saved some characters.ETA: TD's average playoff game: 25.5 carries, 142 yards (5.59 YPC), 1.5 TD's.CM's average playoff game: 18 carries, 79.5 yards (4.37 YPC), 0.8 TD's.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tau837
Footballguy
And you could have just said "I value my opinion and don't respect the opinions of those who disagree."
Curtis Martin is not merely a compiler. That argument can be made for Bettis, but not for Martin. But based on your post, there probably is no need to discuss it further.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Haha, so true, although Bettis was much more of a compiler than Martin ever was. I wouldn't call Martin a compiler; Bettis, yes, obviously. And as usual, SSOG is bringing the win.
Last edited by a moderator:
PhilLynott
Footballguy
I agree completely that an individual does not have to be as spectacular as the greatest at their position. If you look at my previous posts, I chose a rather large cross section of TD's peers. The reason that I picked Dickerson, Thomas, Sanders, Smith, Payton, Faulk, Campbell, and to a degree, Simpson and Brown, is because they are contemporaries. Simpson and Brown played 14 game schedules,(Brown's first four seasons were 12 game seasons.), which makes their stats more impressive. I have to admit that your analogy is a bad one as I think that Marvin could fall into the Cris Carter, Andre Reed, TD void. He had great stats on a great team in an era when stats are inflated. Football is a violent sport and like it or not, I tend to think that the voters are going to give bonus points to a player who could dominate over an extended period of time.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
I'll say this, which I posted in the comments of the blog post. It will irk me quite a bit when Floyd Little gets into the HOF and Davis does not. I'm not sure Davis should be inducted, but he definitely should be in ahead of Floyd Little.
PhilLynott
Footballguy
I totally agree with your statement. If the HOF is so intent on an old school RB they should try Cookie Gilchrist. Either way, I do not see how either one did more than TD did. If the NFL HOF wants an old school player to induct try Tommy Nobis, Tombstone Jackson, or Randy Gradishar.
moleculo
Footballguy
I don't know how you can go from "Clearly, Davis's numbers were considerably better" and "Then there is Davis's postseason performance, which Martin can't touch" and end up with "Martin is definitely deserving and Davis definitely isn't." The only thing you offer to discount your above statements is that TD had better talent than CMartin, but of course you forget that Martin was on a SB team w/ NE and a NYJ team that played in the AFCCG (losing to TD & the Broncos, of course). Martin's teams were not devoid of talent either. No, the only way anyone can justify that Martin is clearly better than TD is to value a long, above average career, scant on recognition.Ask yourself this: in 20 years, who's feats will be remembered? TD will be forever enshrined in SB lore thanks to his 3 TD game vs GB, his NFL MVP, his 2k season, his 3 first team all-pro's. All we will remember CMartin for is winning rookie of the year and leading the league in rushing once.And you could have just said "I value my opinion and don't respect the opinions of those who disagree."Curtis Martin is not merely a compiler. That argument can be made for Bettis, but not for Martin. But based on your post, there probably is no need to discuss it further.
PhilLynott
Footballguy
Maybe I am pessimistic. I am not sure that people will remember Adrian and CJ in 20 years. We live in a what have you done for me lately world.I don't know how you can go from "Clearly, Davis's numbers were considerably better" and "Then there is Davis's postseason performance, which Martin can't touch" and end up with "Martin is definitely deserving and Davis definitely isn't." The only thing you offer to discount your above statements is that TD had better talent than CMartin, but of course you forget that Martin was on a SB team w/ NE and a NYJ team that played in the AFCCG (losing to TD & the Broncos, of course). Martin's teams were not devoid of talent either. No, the only way anyone can justify that Martin is clearly better than TD is to value a long, above average career, scant on recognition.Ask yourself this: in 20 years, who's feats will be remembered? TD will be forever enshrined in SB lore thanks to his 3 TD game vs GB, his NFL MVP, his 2k season, his 3 first team all-pro's. All we will remember CMartin for is winning rookie of the year and leading the league in rushing once.And you could have just said "I value my opinion and don't respect the opinions of those who disagree."Curtis Martin is not merely a compiler. That argument can be made for Bettis, but not for Martin. But based on your post, there probably is no need to discuss it further.
Tau837
Footballguy
Davis excelled for 4 seasons. He was better than Martin in those 4 seasons. But Martin played another 7 seasons beyond those 4 seasons, almost twice as many, in which he averaged 8 TDs and over 1400 YFS per season... and remember, these were his worst 7 seasons. Meanwhile, Davis played another 3 seasons, averaging less than 450 YFS and 2 TDs per season. Overall, Martin played 11 seasons and averaged 9 TDs and nearly 1600 YFS. That is amazing performance sustained over a very long period. I think that easily trumps Davis's accomplishments.And, yes, Martin played for some good teams. But there is a difference IMO in playing with HOF caliber teammates and good teammates... and a difference in playing for an "offensive genius" likely HOF coach throughout vs. a HOF coach for a few seasons and the likes of Herman Edwards the rest of the time.As for 20 years from now, I think you severely overestimate how much Davis will be remembered. Off the top of my head, a guy who is somewhat comparable is Sterling Sharpe. His career ended due to injury 15 years ago after 6 seasons, 3 of which he was 1st team All Pro. Who really remembers him much today? Granted, he didn't play on a team good enough to win two Super Bowls, through no fault of his own... so it's a bit different and Davis did more that will be remembered. But IMO Davis will simply be an interesting footnote 20 years from now. The RBs that will be remembered most vividly from his era will be Sanders, Smith, and Faulk... and probably Bettis, too, because of his popularity, because he played for the Steelers, and because he was a "big back" which is somewhat unusual (at least for sustained success). I think Martin will be remembered just as much as Davis, because 20 years from now he will still likely be in the top 10 (or close to it) all time in rushing yards and possibly YFS.I don't know how you can go from "Clearly, Davis's numbers were considerably better" and "Then there is Davis's postseason performance, which Martin can't touch" and end up with "Martin is definitely deserving and Davis definitely isn't." The only thing you offer to discount your above statements is that TD had better talent than CMartin, but of course you forget that Martin was on a SB team w/ NE and a NYJ team that played in the AFCCG (losing to TD & the Broncos, of course). Martin's teams were not devoid of talent either. No, the only way anyone can justify that Martin is clearly better than TD is to value a long, above average career, scant on recognition.Ask yourself this: in 20 years, who's feats will be remembered? TD will be forever enshrined in SB lore thanks to his 3 TD game vs GB, his NFL MVP, his 2k season, his 3 first team all-pro's. All we will remember CMartin for is winning rookie of the year and leading the league in rushing once.And you could have just said "I value my opinion and don't respect the opinions of those who disagree."Curtis Martin is not merely a compiler. That argument can be made for Bettis, but not for Martin. But based on your post, there probably is no need to discuss it further.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
maybe his software doesnt allow for searching with decimal points, but his query opened it up to people with 14 TDs and less than 1700 yards.Pretty sure it changes it to only 5 people having done it twice and knocks off quite a few from the list of 33.
SSOG
Moderator
I've mentioned before my favorite method of ranking players in HoF discussions- cumulative top-5 finishes. Davis actually has more of them in the RB-centric categories (carries, rushing yards, yards per carry, rushing TDs, yards from scrimmage, total TDs) than Martin, and Davis essentially did it in 4 seasons while Martin needed 11. While Martin may not be a compiler when compared to, say, Jerome Bettis, when you're comparing him to Terrell Davis he most certainly *WAS* a compiler. A compiler who, I might add, averaged a very uninspiring 4.0 yards per carry for his career, and who only finished in the top 10 in ypc ONCE (a tenth place finish, at that).To make a rather extreme argument, one could say that a replacement-level RB could average 3.9 yards per carry (the league average rushing attempt last year went for 4.2 yards). In that case, the only value that Martin added for his entire career over a revolving door of replacement RBs would be 351.8 yards. Using the same metric, Davis would have added 1158.5 yards over a replacement RB for his career. Even if you raise the bar for a replacement RB because Davis was in Denver... if you say a replacement RB would average 4.2 yards per carry in Denver (I'm not pulling that from thin air, that's Olandis Gary's actual ypc average in 1999), then Davis still winds up with 662 yards over replacement for his career- or essentially twice that of Curtis Martin. Martin accomplished a very impressive feat by lasting all those years and for all those carries, but Martin *DID NOT* accomplish anything particularly impressive with the carries that he received.Now, as I said, that's an extreme argument. I do believe that Curtis Martin is worthy of HoF induction, but he most certainly was a compiler (at least on a per-carry basis, if not on a per-season basis). His longevity is worth something, but if another RB (such as Davis) accomplished more than Martin did (not just in terms of top 5 finishes or ypc, but also in terms of awards and postseason accomplishments), then we shouldn't hold it against him that it took him fewer seasons to do so.And you could have just said "I value my opinion and don't respect the opinions of those who disagree."
moleculo
Footballguy
right. You think that many above average, unspectacular seasons easily trumps clearly dominant performances. I get it. Not much more room for debate here, because we clearly disagree and will continue to do so.
Sterling Sharpe was never NFL MVP. He only played in two playoff games. Sterling Sharpe never reached a milestone like 2k rushing yards. Had Sharpe accomplished that, he would garner HOF credentials, IMO. As far as Sharpe or CMartin not playing on a team good enough to win a SB - how many SB's did Elway or Denver win w/o TD? How long did it take to win a playoff game after TD was hurt? Perhaps it's Terrell Davis who made Denver good, and not the other way around. TD was the catalyst for the Broncos winning back-to-back superbowls and ending the NFC's stranglehold on the Lombardi trophy...that much can never be denied and will never be forgotten.
Polar Dude
Footballguy
I'm all for putting him in, primarily because I am tired of hearing Broncos fans whining about it.
Idiot Boxer
Footballguy
Martin > Bettis/Davis > Barber > Alexander/Holmes/Lewis
Martin definitely should be in. Bettis/Davis have good arguments for and against, could go either way. Everyone else, forget it
Martin definitely should be in. Bettis/Davis have good arguments for and against, could go either way. Everyone else, forget it
Idiot Boxer
Footballguy
And for those of you who suggest longevity shouldn't be a consideration...what is your threshold? 1 amazing year setting records and winning all awards? 2? There has to be some consideration to length of career.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
I don't think there should be an exact threshold someone should reach to make it. Those kind of restrictions are foolish, IMO. And I am not saying longevity shouldn't be a consideration, ever. But every once in a while, a player is so great and so dominant for a short period of time, that is makes their lack of longevity not important. Terrell Davis was one of those players.
TommyGilmore
Footballguy
Idiot Boxer said:
Bo Jackson should be in the Hall Of Fame based on his performance in the Brian Bosworth game alone.Happy Ragnarok
Footballguy
I think that, in general, longevity is criminally underrated.
Football is a violent sport. And the ability to sustain punishment without injury...and to recover from injury, when it happens, without a massive erosion of football skills...is a very meaningful characteristic in football. You can argue that it's a matter of "luck." And I wouldn't entirely disagree. But no more so than having been "lucky" enough to be born with godlike speed, inhuman strength, or otherworldly balance, instinct, and vision.
I, myself, might be a Hall of Famer had it not been for my frail physique, my sloth, my weakness, my timidity, my lack of football instincts, and my profound lack of work ethic. Ought I to be considered for inclusion despite my deficiencies that didn't allow me to perform for a long and productive football career? My deficiencies cost me 100% of a HOF football career. Davis's cost him...what, 75% of one?
I see nothing wrong with the idea that to be considered an all-time great, you must have possessed the unique set of physical attributes that enabled you to perform at an elite level for a long time. Davis, whether unlucky, unblessed, or simply "fragile", clearly had one of those physical attributes in pitifully short supply.
Should he be celebrated for his contributions in those amazing seasons he put together? Of course! That's why awards like MVP and first-team All-Pro exist. They are the highest awards offered to people who excel over the short run. The HOF is for those who excel over the long run, and Davis, for all his star burned brightly, just doesn't merit it.
Football is a violent sport. And the ability to sustain punishment without injury...and to recover from injury, when it happens, without a massive erosion of football skills...is a very meaningful characteristic in football. You can argue that it's a matter of "luck." And I wouldn't entirely disagree. But no more so than having been "lucky" enough to be born with godlike speed, inhuman strength, or otherworldly balance, instinct, and vision.
I, myself, might be a Hall of Famer had it not been for my frail physique, my sloth, my weakness, my timidity, my lack of football instincts, and my profound lack of work ethic. Ought I to be considered for inclusion despite my deficiencies that didn't allow me to perform for a long and productive football career? My deficiencies cost me 100% of a HOF football career. Davis's cost him...what, 75% of one?
I see nothing wrong with the idea that to be considered an all-time great, you must have possessed the unique set of physical attributes that enabled you to perform at an elite level for a long time. Davis, whether unlucky, unblessed, or simply "fragile", clearly had one of those physical attributes in pitifully short supply.
Should he be celebrated for his contributions in those amazing seasons he put together? Of course! That's why awards like MVP and first-team All-Pro exist. They are the highest awards offered to people who excel over the short run. The HOF is for those who excel over the long run, and Davis, for all his star burned brightly, just doesn't merit it.
Well put! I disagree, but that is a well put argument against. I look at it kind of like an honor roll in school. You're either on it or you aren't. TD was on it. Just because he didn't attend "school" as long as others, doesn't mean he didn't earn the "honor roll".
Tau837
Footballguy
Tau837
Footballguy
For those not familiar with Doug Drinen's Approximate Value, here is a very abbreviated definition:
Martin's career AV is 129. In his best 4 seasons in terms of rushing yards (the same 4 I used in a previous post in the thread), he totaled 53, considerably below Davis's best 4. But that means Martin's other 7 seasons totaled 76 AV. Martin was extremely consistent, totaling 10-15 AV in each of his first 10 seasons before falling off to 4 AV in his final season.
Bettis's career AV is 102. In his best 4 seasons in terms of rushing yards (the same 4 I used in a previous post in the thread), he totaled 48, last among these 3. So he totaled 54 in his other 9 seasons.
I must say that this discussion is leading me to rethink a bit on Bettis and Davis. At the start of the discussion, I was thinking Martin > Bettis > Davis, with the HOF cutoff line falling between Bettis and Davis. I am now leaning towards Martin > Davis > Bettis, with the HOF cutoff line falling between Martin and Davis.
So for the most part, great discussion.
There is a lot more in the link above, but this gives you the idea: assigning credit appropriately to players' for the their teams' success (or lack thereof). I'm not sure I completely agree with it, and like any comprehensive formula, one could probably argue various elements. But it exists and provides us with some comparative info and in theory normalizes to an extent for supporting cast.Davis's career AV is 80, which consisted of 70 points for the first 4 seasons and 10 points for the last 3.
Martin's career AV is 129. In his best 4 seasons in terms of rushing yards (the same 4 I used in a previous post in the thread), he totaled 53, considerably below Davis's best 4. But that means Martin's other 7 seasons totaled 76 AV. Martin was extremely consistent, totaling 10-15 AV in each of his first 10 seasons before falling off to 4 AV in his final season.
Bettis's career AV is 102. In his best 4 seasons in terms of rushing yards (the same 4 I used in a previous post in the thread), he totaled 48, last among these 3. So he totaled 54 in his other 9 seasons.
I must say that this discussion is leading me to rethink a bit on Bettis and Davis. At the start of the discussion, I was thinking Martin > Bettis > Davis, with the HOF cutoff line falling between Bettis and Davis. I am now leaning towards Martin > Davis > Bettis, with the HOF cutoff line falling between Martin and Davis.
So for the most part, great discussion.
Tanner9919
Footballguy
the problem with Davis is he is the one who's repeatedly telling us that he belongs in the HOF...
tooting your own horn with regards to HOF voting , never works..just ask Pete Rose..I don't think TD did enough to get into the HOF..you should have to meet certain criteria, a certain number of rushes, games played, yards rushed, etc.
SSOG
Moderator
I'd go more like this
avis/Martin > Barber >>>>>>>>>>>>> Holmes/Alexander > Bettis >>>>>>> Lewis
I think that longevity definitely lowers the dominance threshold. I think if an RB only averaged 800 yards per season, but he managed to do so for 30 years, I'd consider that HoF caliber. On the other hand, if an RB only played one season, but in that one season he rushed for 4,000 yards and 62 TDs, earning every major award along the way, then I'd consider that HoF-worthy, too. Neither would be as hall-worthy as the guys who combined longevity AND dominance, but those guys are the true rarities and not the standard, at least not at the RB position.Idiot Boxer said:
kaa
Footballguy
The Hall of Fame isn't an interesting discussion at all. Its an opinion poll and way too political a process. If it were up to me, I'd kick everyone out of the hall and rename it the hall of memorabilia or the football museum or something. The concept of profiling 25 semifinalists is something I'd steer a million miles away from.
those two feel like they're in the same boat for me. What other RBs are eligible? Faulk is coming up shortly, right? No way either edges him. I don't foresee one going in and not the other.One annoying detractor to TD is Olandis Gary and then I believe undrafted record setting rookie Mike Anderson. They did so well playing the same position which makes me want to throw credit to the O-line and Shanny and take some away from TD.
Bettis is a good amount higher than Davis for me. Still can't believe Alexander's career ended so abruptly, not sure where I stand there. Like Faulk(mentioned before) Martin is a lock. TD and Priest will struggle to get votes when those two are eligible
Hunterbeer
Footballguy
One of the things that has always bothered me about the success of TD is the success of so many runners after him in that system. Runners who are clearly not elite backs. He is on the fence with me. He got the luxury of that system and playing with a HOF QB, and HOF TE, and an amazing WR in Rod Smith. It doesn't bother you that Olandis Gary was able to come in and rush for 1,159 yards in only twelve games after TD got hurt in 1999? I mean this was the year right after Davis' 2008 yard season. Gary also did this with Brian Griese at the helm, not John Elway. I think it is fair to say that that was a slight drop-off in talent. Still Gary's 96.6 yards per game would be better than all but two of Davis' career seasons.
As for your comparison with Earl Campbell, well I think there is no comparison. The Tyler Rose has more Offensive Player of the Year Awards (3-2), more MVPs (3-1) ((THREE MVPs)), more First team All-Pro (5-3), more Second Team All-Pro (3-0) and his four-year stretch matches up pretty well the TD stretch.
In yards per game, Campbell went 96.7, 106.1, 128.9, 81.8
Davis went 79.8, 96.1, 116.7, 125.5
It certainly appears that Campbell more than held his own despite playing on vastly inferior teams in terms of offensive talent during each's best four-year run. In fact if we rank them 1-4, Campbell averaged more yards per game than did TD in three of their four prime years. (And these are four concsecutive years. I could throw a later 1301 yard season in for Campbell to skew the results even more in his favor).
Of course, they both played more years as injuries caught up to them, the difference there is staggering. Campbell produced 2,950 more yards AND a first team All-Pro season.
Davis produced a mere 1,194 yards and was a non-factor in terms of League leaders.
Whether it be Offensive Player of the Years, MVPs, First Team All-Pros, etc. Campbell was simply the better RB. He is a CLEAR Hall of Famer. Davis is on the fence and I do not think he gets in.
As for your comparison with Earl Campbell, well I think there is no comparison. The Tyler Rose has more Offensive Player of the Year Awards (3-2), more MVPs (3-1) ((THREE MVPs)), more First team All-Pro (5-3), more Second Team All-Pro (3-0) and his four-year stretch matches up pretty well the TD stretch.
In yards per game, Campbell went 96.7, 106.1, 128.9, 81.8
Davis went 79.8, 96.1, 116.7, 125.5
It certainly appears that Campbell more than held his own despite playing on vastly inferior teams in terms of offensive talent during each's best four-year run. In fact if we rank them 1-4, Campbell averaged more yards per game than did TD in three of their four prime years. (And these are four concsecutive years. I could throw a later 1301 yard season in for Campbell to skew the results even more in his favor).
Of course, they both played more years as injuries caught up to them, the difference there is staggering. Campbell produced 2,950 more yards AND a first team All-Pro season.
Davis produced a mere 1,194 yards and was a non-factor in terms of League leaders.
Whether it be Offensive Player of the Years, MVPs, First Team All-Pros, etc. Campbell was simply the better RB. He is a CLEAR Hall of Famer. Davis is on the fence and I do not think he gets in.
gonzobill5
Footballguy
Way to skirt the Sayers comparison - I wouldn't want to go there either.
In some ways, Campbell is a great comparison. They both had unbelievable peak performances in their first 4 seasons. Both had short careers. Most probably feel that Campbell was undoubtedly a better player. His short career can be explained by his running style (though that may be a silly argument) and there is absolutely no doubt that he was the one that made those Oilers teams like there is with Davis. And while Campbell has a leg up on personal awards, Davis blows him out of the water with postseason performance. If you asked around, I'd bet 90% or more would say Campbell over TD. Just watch Campbell run and you know he belongs. But when you put them side by side (at least statistically), these two start to look like they belong together.Marcus Allen is a much tougher sell, IMO. If you put their best seasons, Allen in 1985 and Davis' 1998, side by side, you can argue all day which was better. Both were stellar in the postseason. Allen had injury problems too - had to settle for a part time role after a knee injury in 89 & some bickering with Al. But he endured. He stayed in the league, found a role on the Chiefs, continued to show what a great player he was. He didn't hang around long after his talent was gone, either. In the end, he had 16 seasons to Davis' 8. He has 18,000 total yards to Davis' 9,000. Allen has 144 TDs (most rushing TDs when he retired) to 65 TDs for Davis. Are these guys on the same level? I'm not so sure.
I am surprised that you think Thurman Thomas is better than all these other guys, by the way...I'd personally rank him lower than Campbell & Allen. As ball carrier, he wasn't unbelievable. Too many season with a poor ypc. On second thought, maybe it is what he did catching the ball that vaults him over these two for you.
Overall, I think you make an excellent case for TD. I'm with SSOG in the belief that you can't fault a guy for the system he plays in, as long as he wasn't just riding the coattails, so to speak. Did Davis have a great QB? Yeah, but let's not forget that Elway was a just another QB without a ring before Davis came around. Did play in a great system? Yeah, but he was by far the best running back in that system.
Keep up the good work
moleculo
Footballguy
Way to skirt the Sayers comparison - I wouldn't want to go there either.
Marcus Allen is a much tougher sell, IMO. If you put their best seasons, Allen in 1985 and Davis' 1998, side by side, you can argue all day which was better. Both were stellar in the postseason. Allen had injury problems too - had to settle for a part time role after a knee injury in 89 & some bickering with Al. But he endured. He stayed in the league, found a role on the Chiefs, continued to show what a great player he was. He didn't hang around long after his talent was gone, either. In the end, he had 16 seasons to Davis' 8. He has 18,000 total yards to Davis' 9,000. Allen has 144 TDs (most rushing TDs when he retired) to 65 TDs for Davis. Are these guys on the same level? I'm not so sure.
I am surprised that you think Thurman Thomas is better than all these other guys, by the way...I'd personally rank him lower than Campbell & Allen. As ball carrier, he wasn't unbelievable. Too many season with a poor ypc. On second thought, maybe it is what he did catching the ball that vaults him over these two for you.
Overall, I think you make an excellent case for TD. I'm with SSOG in the belief that you can't fault a guy for the system he plays in, as long as he wasn't just riding the coattails, so to speak. Did Davis have a great QB? Yeah, but let's not forget that Elway was a just another QB without a ring before Davis came around. Did play in a great system? Yeah, but he was by far the best running back in that system.
Keep up the good work
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Thanks gonzobill,
I'll address your Allen question here.
My problem is that he has good career totals only because of all of the "junk" years he had. In my RB-ranking formula, he ranked 1st in the league in '82 (9 games) and '85, and 4th in '84. Those were his only three seasons in the top ten for his entire career.
He only topped 900 rushing yards in three seasons, '83-'85. His '83 season ranked only 20th among RBs for me because he barely broke 1,000 yards and combined that with 14 fumbles/2 fumbles recovered. Allen had good receiving numbers that year, too, but it's hard to get past 12 net fumbles.
Allen had an insane 10 years of between 500 and 900 rushing yards. That's a great bit of trivia, but that's not overly impressive. IMO, without his masterful 1983 post-season, he's not in the HOF. Only one other player, HOF Joe Perry, has more than 7 seasons of between 500 and 900 rushing yards.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tiny/8pUgn
Perry played most of his career in 12-game seasons, though, making him not a real comparison. Two of his seasons came in the AAFC, so he only had 8 NFL seasons of such performances.
Allen only ranked in the top ten in YFS in five seasons. As mentioned, '82, '84 and '85 were great seasons. He ranked 9th in '83, the big fumble seasons; of course, he redeemed himself tenfold in the playoffs. 1987 was the other season, but he had only 5 TDs, had only 3.8 YPC, and was the second best RB on his team that season.
If you like, you can blame Al Davis for Allen's lack of production. But if we're more interested in production than talent, that point isn't very strong.
I'll address your Allen question here.
My problem is that he has good career totals only because of all of the "junk" years he had. In my RB-ranking formula, he ranked 1st in the league in '82 (9 games) and '85, and 4th in '84. Those were his only three seasons in the top ten for his entire career.
He only topped 900 rushing yards in three seasons, '83-'85. His '83 season ranked only 20th among RBs for me because he barely broke 1,000 yards and combined that with 14 fumbles/2 fumbles recovered. Allen had good receiving numbers that year, too, but it's hard to get past 12 net fumbles.
Allen had an insane 10 years of between 500 and 900 rushing yards. That's a great bit of trivia, but that's not overly impressive. IMO, without his masterful 1983 post-season, he's not in the HOF. Only one other player, HOF Joe Perry, has more than 7 seasons of between 500 and 900 rushing yards.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/tiny/8pUgn
Perry played most of his career in 12-game seasons, though, making him not a real comparison. Two of his seasons came in the AAFC, so he only had 8 NFL seasons of such performances.
Allen only ranked in the top ten in YFS in five seasons. As mentioned, '82, '84 and '85 were great seasons. He ranked 9th in '83, the big fumble seasons; of course, he redeemed himself tenfold in the playoffs. 1987 was the other season, but he had only 5 TDs, had only 3.8 YPC, and was the second best RB on his team that season.
If you like, you can blame Al Davis for Allen's lack of production. But if we're more interested in production than talent, that point isn't very strong.
KoolKat
Footballguy
I disagree with this. Although I would not mind seeing both of them in the Hall, I would prefer to see Little in ahead of Davis. Little was all that the Broncos had, and still put up very good numbers for his era. It is because of Floyd Little that the franchise was able to sustain in my opinion. Had we not had him I do not find it too hard to believe that there would not be a Denver Broncos. Furthermore, he was a pioneer for smaller backs, proving that a guy of small stature could be dominant. On the other hand, TD was on teams that won 46 games in three years. Now, TD was a big part of that, and perhaps the only reason the Broncos won SB 32, but Elway, the O-Line/Scheme, the D-Line, and Smith/McCaffrey were also big parts too. To say that TD deserves it more than Little is to only look at stats. The Broncos almost ceased existence in 1965, and had their first winning season in 1973 (nearly 15 years after their conception). Had Little not been there to uplift fan's aspirations, I believe they would have moved. Thus, without Floyd Little there is no Denver Broncos, and the NFL is a very different place. Beyond that, Little did put up respectable stats, retiring as the NFL's 7th leading rusher, 3 Pro Bowls, and 2 AFL All-Star appearances. I would rather see Little in than TD.On a side note, Randy Gradishar needs to get in before either of them.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
The argument for Little boils down to "if not for Little, there would be no Denver Broncos." I don't think that's a persuasive argument. If not for Bob McNair, there would be no Houston Texans. Does that make him a HOFer? Do Johnny Unitas' accomplishments mean less since there is no Baltimore Colts? Of course not. Little was a very good back on a bad team, but even putting him in the HOVG would be a stretch. There would have been many more deserving candidates from the senior class. Davis was the best running back in Denver history. Was he the most talented? Probably not. Little may have been more talented than him, among others. But the HOF isn't the Hall of Talent, and Davis was the lead horse for one of the most dominant running games in NFL history.
KoolKat
Footballguy
The Bob McNair comparison is not a good one, as he was not a player, and thus his role in saving/creating a franchise is far less impressive. Johnny Unitas' accomplishments do not mean less, but that is because he was not around to "save" the Colts. Had Unitas been drafted in 1980, and went on keep the Colts from moving, it would surely add to his legacy. Did you ever see Little play? If so, how can possibly say that putting him in the HOVG is a stretch? The dude was amazing, and the only reason the Broncos were even remotely competitive. Put him on OJ's Bills teams, and he would definitely be in, in my opinion. If Little does not deserve to be in, TD certainly does not.
SSOG
Moderator
The last sentence speaks to the heart of it for me. Had Little gotten inducted via the regular process, I don't think any great injustice would have been done. He's definitely one of those guys where I can see the arguments for and the arguments against. The big problem comes because he's NOT getting nominated via the regular process, he's coming through the Seniors route, and therefore the competition is much, much stiffer. Would Little be one of the five most deserving players of the last 15 years (or however long regular entry goes back)? Possibly, in a lean year. Is he one of the two most deserving candidates in the entire history of the NFL? Absolutely not. I don't think he's even one of the two most deserving Seniors candidates from the Denver Broncos (I'd take Gradishar and Tombstone over Little). Heck, if the hall wants to continue this silly farce pretending that Special Teamers deserve induction, then Rick Upchurch should be the standard-bearer, not Ray Guy.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
There are a lot of deserving senior candidates, particularly on the defensive side of the ball. That didn't stop them from mucking it up and nominating LeBeau.Alex Karras, Chris Hanburger, Isiah Robertson, Chuck Howley, Lemar Parrish and Maxie Baughan would all have been good choices. Jimmy Patton would have been my #1 choice.Mick Tingelhoff, George Kunz, Daryle Lamonica, Harold Jackson, Roman Gabriel, Del Shofner and a whole bunch of linemen would have been solid offensive choices. If you want to go the RB route, Chuck Foreman or Larry Brown or even Lydell Mitchell would have been better choices.Little would not be in my top 25 of most deserving via the senior's committee. Little had three very good seasons from '71 to '73. He was basically done after that. In '70, he had a very generic season; 1062 yards from scrimmage, 3 TDs. In the pre-merger era he was a very good all-around player, where he was a valuable contributor on special teams. But none of what I've said screams Hall of Famer to anyone but Broncos fans. If Little saved the Broncos, he should be in the Broncos Ring of Fame, which he is. But the NFL HOF? No one has ever convinced me that he should be. If the Broncos had relocated, how would that be different than when the NFL survived after Cleveland, Los Angeles, Houston and Baltimore lost cities? Broncos fans should love Little, but that doesn't make him an NFL HOFer.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Did Mike Shanahan hurt Terrell Davis' Hall of Fame chances?
My thought when watching Super Bowl 33 was always that Shanahan gave FB Howard Griffith the two goal line touchdown carries because he wanted Elway to go out as not only a champion, but as a Super Bowl MVP. Davis had 100 yards, and if he had two scores to go with that, he might very well have won his 2nd straight SB MVP (which only two players have ever done - Bart Starr and Terry Bradshaw). But instead, Griffith got the touchdowns, and Elway got the MVP award for having 300+ yards, one passing TD, and one rushing TD.
My thought when watching Super Bowl 33 was always that Shanahan gave FB Howard Griffith the two goal line touchdown carries because he wanted Elway to go out as not only a champion, but as a Super Bowl MVP. Davis had 100 yards, and if he had two scores to go with that, he might very well have won his 2nd straight SB MVP (which only two players have ever done - Bart Starr and Terry Bradshaw). But instead, Griffith got the touchdowns, and Elway got the MVP award for having 300+ yards, one passing TD, and one rushing TD.
dgreen
Footballguy
This is the first time I've heard someone use anything in Davis' postseason as a potential argument AGAINST him.
Sweet Love
IBL Representative
Yes...when you can get output from guys like Mike Anderson, Quentin Griffin, Mike Bell, Tatum Bell, Selvin Young, Reuben Droughns, and Olandis Gary...not to mention some of the crew he has worked with in Washington.
I don't want to take anything away from Davis, but when you add up the fact that he played in a RB friendly system and had one good year and three awesome years, it is so tough to put a grade on him...I'd almost call it an "incomplete", and unable to even judge if he could/should go to the HOF.
To compare, Portis' first two (and only two) years in Denver, he posted the following:
273-1508-15 5.5 and 33-364-2
290-1591-14 5.5 and 38-314-0
Here are Davis' numbers...about 1 yard per carry less on average, nine less TDs.
237-1117-7 4.7 and 49-367-1
345-1538-13 4.5 and 36-310-2
It's not all about the numbers, but when I see stuff like this, it becomes more difficult to make a case for him. Again, not saying what he couldn't have been, but not sure how you can judge when the data (i.e. a lengthier career) is not there.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
It wasn't an argument against him. The point was that, had he gotten those two goal line scores in the 2nd Super Bowl and gotten another Super Bowl MVP award, his already sterling postseason accomplishments would be even more staggeringly awesome. But, since Shanny was eager, IMO, to get Elway that MVP award, he gave the fullback the goal line scores, thus making it less likely that he'd get it (since 100 yards looks less great than 100 yards and two scores).dgreen said:
Tau837
Footballguy
This seems like a stretch to me. Davis's postseason accomplishments are already awesome enough to be arguably the best ever for a RB. It is those postseason accomplishments that have him in the HOF conversation. I don't think another SBMVP would have made the difference for him to get in.
dgreen
Footballguy
I admittedly don't remember these plays or drives, but wouldn't he have Elway pass if his goal was to get John the MVP?
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Maybe not, but it would have made his resume look better.
Winning was the number one priority, and considering how unstoppable the Broncos were running the ball at the goal line that year, running the ball from the 1 made the most sense. Elway did score late in the game on a draw from the 3, though.
