Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
How so?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
2007 Hall of Fame Candidates...Terrell Davis leads list of newbies (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Ministry of Pain
- Start date
shakeybarn
Footballguy
Drives me bonkers that journalists put themselves in, owners, GMs..... with the field position he put opposing Ds in time after time after... he won so many Raiders games....Much less as you put it, was so dominating... and we haven't seen anyone CLOSE since then. Roby was good... and Lechler and Landeta have been good in recent memory.... but just the pinnacle. His college career was astounding too. Perhaps better than the NFL.It is what it is said:
Most dominating Punter in league history. And a very good athlete to boot
shakeybarn
Footballguy
Hard to explain.. I just think... well.. the fact the injury shortened his career you assume he would of continued a decent career, regardless... but someone who wraps those type of years... bookended by mediocrity....let's say Tiki continues to play and put up 3 years like his first 3 years... does he get in? that's what I mean.not trying to take away from TD....
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
But if that person has CAREER numbers that warrant the HOF, they should get in - so what if Tiki has three years like his first three years if, by ending his career in three years, he ends in some top-10 all time categories.As an example, Brett Favre - the last few years have CLEARLY not been Pro Bowl years, but he will probably end up on top of almost all the meaningful records.The more challenging question for your argument is whether TD getting in means a guy like PRIEST HOLMES deserves to get in. IMO, Priest did not have a HOF career but he definitely dominated the RB spot in the regular season for three years.TD's post season numbers really help get him in, IMO. If the Broncos had won only one Bowl, or if TD hadnot been such an integral part of those runs, or if he had never won a Super Bowl MVP, I think he doesn't get in.But having all those credentials behind him - three year Pro Bowler, 2G season, two rings, Super Bowl MVP, dominant for three regular seasons in rush yardage and TDs, tremendous first four years in the league, PLUS that his career was clearly shortened exclusively due to injury and that he was a model NFL citizen with a lot of name recognition mean he will be voted in - and on his first ballot.I think TD's a shoe-in.
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
Nice numbers - if the only thing that mattered to HOF voters was regular season career, you'd have a point - but, as I mentioned above, when you add up what TD did in the regular season plus what he did in th epost-season, he gets in. Easily.It is what it is said:
Last edited by a moderator:
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
1999:
1999 den | 12 | 276 1159 4.2 7 | 21 159 7.6 0 |
1999 den | 12 | 276 1159 4.2 7 | 21 159 7.6 0 |
shakeybarn
Footballguy
And what Denver runners did in general... much less how dirty the Denver o-line was to get those yards. But yes, I've thought of that too. What would TD have done on the Cardinals... but that's just conjecture.
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
TD on the Cards - yes, pure conjecture.
He wasn't - Steve Young on the Bucs - thoroughly unimpressive. That's not the point.
The players were where the players were - Mike Shanahan drafted him, he played his entire career with the Broncos, he is probably the second most recognizeable Bronco in their history.
He wasn't - Steve Young on the Bucs - thoroughly unimpressive. That's not the point.
The players were where the players were - Mike Shanahan drafted him, he played his entire career with the Broncos, he is probably the second most recognizeable Bronco in their history.
Last edited by a moderator:
Eric Stratton
Footballguy
Where can I get your autograph?It is what it is said:
Tau837
Footballguy
This line of thinking will hurt Davis IMO. In 2010, Emmitt is a lock. In 2011, IMO Bettis will be a first ballot choice (I realize many disagree). If Curtis Martin never plays again, he will also become eligible in 2011, and be a first ballot player; if he plays this year and then retires, make it 2012. And by the 2010-2012 time frame, Tomlinson, Alexander, Portis, and James will have 4+ more seasons in the books, and we'll know which ones of them are likely HOFers... and we'll also be looking at another generation of young backs with potential for HOF worthy careers.I think Davis needs to get in before 2010, or he'll have to wait for the veteran's committee to have any shot. Yet another reason why he won't make it.It is what it is said:
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
I remember the other thread when you wrote that and I still disagree. He wasn't a long snapper or holder or something. He cover kicks, he covered punts, he returned kicks, he returned punts, I think that for a short time he may have been a holder and oh yeah, when they really needed him to play WR, he did that too. He was the MVP of a Pro Bowl. I think that he meant more to his team than Jan Stenerud or Ray Guy or anyone else from special teams you'll ever see.
Tau837
Footballguy
Even if a special teams player could make the HOF, there have been other great special teams players. How does one make the assessment that Tasker is the best ever? For example, what makes him better than Brian Mitchell, the NFL career leader in kickoff return yards, punt return yards, and special teams TDs and #2 in career total yards? Do you think he will make the HOF?
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
His versatility. Mitchell just returned and played some RB. Tasker covered kicks and punts. Opposing teams will game plan their kickoffs and punts around an excellent return man all the time. I don't think that they often game plan their return game around a cover guy and IIRC, that's what alot of teams did to Tasker. Plus he did some returns and did play a year or two of WR. I tend to view guys who just return, or are mainly used on returns, as RBs or WRs or CBs: Mitchell, Gray, Metcalf. None of those guys covered kicks and punts. He was the best at that since it was really recognized as an important skill, which I think coincidentally was when Marv Levy was coaching special teams for Kansas City and opened some eyes to how important special teams could be. The only one close to Tasker in my opinion was Billy Bates from the Cowboys. I believe that Special Teams are a very important part of the sport and the only other major sport to have a sort of separate "special teams" section, baseball, is starting to see relievers and designated hitters inducted into the Baseball HOF. Now, I know that in alot of ways the baseball HOF is a joke, but I do think the precedent is being set for the football HOF.
5Rings
Lurker
Monk has no business in the HOF. A guy who wasn't even the best WR on his team for 14/18 years in the league should have to buy a ticket to Canton. I'll go with Tags, McDaniel, Mathews, Thurman and Irvin.
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
I don't usually do them but I might consider it. Are you saying Davis will never get in?Sig bet?
Ministry of Pain
Footballguy
Hey Brunell, I could have picked this one or any others in the thread...you are saying you don't think TD belongs. Totally fine, I respect your opinion...wholeheartedly disagree.Where Levin and I are coming from I think is not so much about whether TD belongs or not...we both believe he does...but also whether the committee will vote him in. And I also believe Levin and I think it's a vrtual lock...the fact CBS lead off the article with "Terrell Davis heads 2007 1st timers"...they did the same with Aikman, Marino and Young, Howie Long, sometimes there are just obvious players that are going to get in. I have never heard sports announcers say TD does not deserve to get in...there are some that might say it was somewhat of a brief career...however he did everything and dominated for those 4 seasons in his 7 in the NFL.BTW, anyone saying that other Denver RBs doing well have hurt TD's chances are fooling themselves...no one duplicated his stats during those 4 years or put a Super Bowl trophy in Pat Bowlan's office...you can hate the Broncos if you like...I was never a fan of TD or Denver but objectively he deserves to get in and he will get in, no question about it.
Tau837
Footballguy
I don't think he'll get in at all, but I'll sig bet the 1st ballot part. There's no point in a sig bet for him ever getting in, since it could be years from now.I don't usually do them but I might consider it. Are you saying Davis will never get in?
Tau837
Footballguy
Are you a Bills fan? Just curious.Here's another way to look at this. How many big plays do you think an average HOFer makes per game or per season? How many impact plays did Aikman, Reggie White, Carson, Moon, and Wright make per game or season, just using last year's HOF class as an example? Now... how many did Tasker make per game and/or per season as a special teams player? Same argument applies to kickers and punters, which is why I think they have not been recognized in the HOF like other positions. I believe the view is that even for the best kickers, punters, returners, and special teams cover players, there is not a large delta between them and the average players in those positions/roles. On those Bills teams, there were a number of potential HOFers: Kelly, Thomas, Reed, and Bruce Smith come immediately to mind. Removing any one of those players from those teams would have had a tremendously greater impact than removing Tasker.It's not happening.
We can agree to disagree.And, by the way, the designated hitter comparison is a bad one. What designated hitters have made the baseball HOF? I assume you must be referring to Molitor... First of all, playing DH is equivalent to starting on offense in the NFL anyway. Plus, Molitor played the field for more than half of his career, anyway. And finally, Molitor compiled all time great level offensive statistics... he is #9 on the all time hits list. None of this is comparable to Tasker. But, as you say, the baseball HOF is a joke anyway.
Last edited by a moderator:
Borat
Footballguy
SSOG
Moderator
Terrell Davis:1995- Lowest drafted player to ever rush for 1,000 as a rookie.1996- NFL Offensive Player of the Year. AFC Offensive Player of the Year.1997- AFC Offensive Player of the Year. Superbowl MVP.1998- NFL MVP. NFL Offensive Player of the Year.Postseason records- 158.9 yards per game (NFL record). 1.5 rushing TDs per game (NFL record). 7 straight 100-yard games (NFL record). 7 straight games with 1+ TD (NFL record).Jamal Lewis:2003- NFL Offensive Player of the Year.2004- charged with attempting to distribute cocain, spent time in jail.Really, it's the awards and the postseason accomplishments that set Davis apart. The only RBs who have been as decorated in their entire CAREERS as Davis was in his 4 years were Jim Brown, Walter Peyton, and Barry Sanders. If Davis's postseason numbers were projected out to a 16-game season, they'd be 2542 yards (2280 rushing) and 24 TDs. The rushing numbers and yards-from-scrimmage numbers would both be NFL records, and the TD numbers would be the 4th best mark of all time, iirc. The most remarkable thing about this was that this came against PLAYOFF-CALIBER DEFENSES (unlike Jamal Lewis's 2000 yard season, 500 yards of which came against the Cleveland Browns). In 1998, Davis faced perhaps the three best defenses in the entire NFL (Miami Dolphins, New York Jets, Atlanta Falcons) and carried 78 times for 468 yards (6 yards per carry exactly). SIX FREAKING YARDS PER CARRY!People say that Terrell Davis had a great stretch, but didn't last long enough, but that trivializes what he did during that stretch. Terrell Davis didn't have a "great stretch", he had the BEST THREE-YEAR STRETCH ANY RB HAS EVER POSTED IN THE HISTORY OF THE NFL. Gale Sayers, Jim Brown, Barry Sanders, Walter Peyton, Emmitt Smith... none of them could match the numbers Davis produced or the awards he won from 1996-1998. And there was no reason at all to think that he couldn't have kept it up. That's really what sets Davis apart from all the other "great stretch" RBs such as Priest Holmes or Jamal Lewis. If Gale Sayers and Earl Campbell belong in the HoF, so does Terrell Davis.One last arguement before I go.Terrell Davis's average season in his first 4 years:1898 yards, 15.25 TDsTerrell Davis's average season after 5+ years:431 yards, 1.33 TDsEarl Campbell's average season in his first 4 years:1701 yards, 13.75 TDsEarl Campbell's average season after 5+ years:682 yards, 3.8 TDsSo if Campbell deserves a spot but Davis doesn't, what you're really saying was that if he managed to average maybe 200 more yards in his brutally ineffective post-injury tour, with another couple of scores per year, that he'd be a HoFer? Averaging 682 yards instead of 431 yards in the twilight of his career shouldn't be what makes a player a HoFer.It is what it is said:
Alright, let's make a more fair comparison. We'll compare how Gale Sayers dominated the 22 team league with how Davis dominated the 30 team league.Sayers / Terrell Davis-4 pro bowls / 3 pro bowls0 MVPs / 1 MVP0 offensive PoY awards / 2 Offensive PoY awardsSeems like Terrell Davis was more dominant than Gale Sayers was during his short span at the top.Let's take this comparison further.Seasons among the top 10% in the NFL in rushing yardsSayers- 3Davis- 3Seasons among the top 10% in the NFL in rushing TDsSayers- 2Davis- 3Seasons among the top 10% in the NFL in yards from scrimmageSayers- 1Davis- 3Seasons among the top 10% in the NFL in total TDsSayers- 1Davis- 3Personally, I see that as pretty darn close (with Davis getting the decided edge), but apparently I don't know that much about football.Haven't you been around long enough to know that comparing a current/recent player with players from the 1950s and 1960s is comparing apples and oranges?The Sayers-Davis comparison in particular has been made many times on these boards, and if you think Davis is close to Sayers, you know less about football than I thought you did.
Sure, Gale Sayers had that punt returner thing going for him, but Davis has that whole "best postseason rusher in NFL history, averaged 160 yards per game in the postseason" thing going for him, too. Again, I'd call the two pretty comparable, with Davis actually getting the edge in terms of dominance.Edit: Just so nobody can accuse me of "massaging the numbers", here are their end-of-season ranks. Keep in mind that both players essentially had 4 fully healthy seasons, and these are ranks vs. the rest of the league at the time, so we're comparing apples to apples here. The statistical categories we're considering are Rushing Yards, Rushing TDs, Yards from Scrimmage, and total TDs.# of times each player has finished first in any of the above categories-Sayers- 3Davis- 4# of times each player has finished 2nd or better in any of the above categories-Sayers- 7Davis- 10# of times each player has finished 3rd or better in any of the above categories-Sayers- 10Davis- 12And once again, bear in mind that there were only 22-26 teams in the league when Sayers played and was healthy, while there were 30 teams in the league while Davis played and was healthy, so there was more competition.Adjust the numbers for era, adjust the numbers for shortened seasons, adjust the numbers for inflation or the rising cost of the Japanese yen compared to the U.S. Dollar, adjust the numbers any which way you please... none of that changes the fact that Terrell Davis was more dominant than Gale Sayers.
Last edited by a moderator:
ConstruxBoy
Kate's Daddy
Only a Bills fan could pimp Tasker like this.Are you a Bills fan? Just curious.Here's another way to look at this. How many big plays do you think an average HOFer makes per game or per season? How many impact plays did Aikman, Reggie White, Carson, Moon, and Wright make per game or season, just using last year's HOF class as an example? Now... how many did Tasker make per game and/or per season as a special teams player? Same argument applies to kickers and punters, which is why I think they have not been recognized in the HOF like other positions. I believe the view is that even for the best kickers, punters, returners, and special teams cover players, there is not a large delta between them and the average players in those positions/roles. On those Bills teams, there were a number of potential HOFers: Kelly, Thomas, Reed, and Bruce Smith come immediately to mind. Removing any one of those players from those teams would have had a tremendously greater impact than removing Tasker.It's not happening.
Agree to disagree. I see your point, I just think he'll get in at some point and deserves it. I think you'll start seeing some more DHs getting in, as well as relievers. We do agree on one thing though: TD shouldn't be in the football HOF. 
Put a question mark there because I wasn't sure, just woke up etc.Now I see it's 3 of 4 years not 3 in a row.
Still some gaudy stats there
Tau837
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Tau837
Footballguy
Why do people continue to cite draft position when discussing HOF credentials? It doesn't matter.Come to think of it, I have only seen this argument for Davis and Rod Smith... so it is only SSOG and other Denver fans that use it.
I think it's the awards that set Sayers apart. 5 All Pro selections to 3 for Davis. And All Time NFL Halfback is greater than any award ever given to Davis.
Whether or not he "could have kept it up" is irrelevant. There was no reason at all to think Sterling Sharpe couldn't have kept it up, but we aren't putting him in the HOF. There was no reason at all to think Priest Holmes couldn't have kept it up, either. No idea why you cited him the way you did.
This is a case where numbers don't tell the whole story. Someone who looks only at numbers will think Davis was better than he was. Someone who looks only at numbers will think Sayers and Campbell were not as great as they were. You have to see the players play and consider their eras and situations. If you don't know this and can't see this, there is no way to resolve the debate.One last arguement before I go.Terrell Davis's average season in his first 4 years:1898 yards, 15.25 TDsTerrell Davis's average season after 5+ years:431 yards, 1.33 TDsEarl Campbell's average season in his first 4 years:1701 yards, 13.75 TDsEarl Campbell's average season after 5+ years:682 yards, 3.8 TDsSo if Campbell deserves a spot but Davis doesn't, what you're really saying was that if he managed to average maybe 200 more yards in his brutally ineffective post-injury tour, with another couple of scores per year, that he'd be a HoFer? Averaging 682 yards instead of 431 yards in the twilight of his career shouldn't be what makes a player a HoFer.
Alright, let's make a more fair comparison. We'll compare how Gale Sayers dominated the 22 team league with how Davis dominated the 30 team league.Sayers / Terrell Davis-4 pro bowls / 3 pro bowls0 MVPs / 1 MVP0 offensive PoY awards / 2 Offensive PoY awardsSeems like Terrell Davis was more dominant than Gale Sayers was during his short span at the top.Let's take this comparison further.Seasons among the top 10% in the NFL in rushing yardsSayers- 3Davis- 3Seasons among the top 10% in the NFL in rushing TDsSayers- 2Davis- 3Seasons among the top 10% in the NFL in yards from scrimmageSayers- 1Davis- 3Seasons among the top 10% in the NFL in total TDsSayers- 1Davis- 3...Sure, Gale Sayers had that punt returner thing going for him, but Davis has that whole "best postseason rusher in NFL history, averaged 160 yards per game in the postseason" thing going for him, too. Again, I'd call the two pretty comparable, with Davis actually getting the edge in terms of dominance.Edit: Just so nobody can accuse me of "massaging the numbers", here are their end-of-season ranks. Keep in mind that both players essentially had 4 fully healthy seasons, and these are ranks vs. the rest of the league at the time, so we're comparing apples to apples here. The statistical categories we're considering are Rushing Yards, Rushing TDs, Yards from Scrimmage, and total TDs.# of times each player has finished first in any of the above categories-Sayers- 3Davis- 4# of times each player has finished 2nd or better in any of the above categories-Sayers- 7Davis- 10# of times each player has finished 3rd or better in any of the above categories-Sayers- 10Davis- 12And once again, bear in mind that there were only 22-26 teams in the league when Sayers played and was healthy, while there were 30 teams in the league while Davis played and was healthy, so there was more competition.Adjust the numbers for era, adjust the numbers for shortened seasons, adjust the numbers for inflation or the rising cost of the Japanese yen compared to the U.S. Dollar, adjust the numbers any which way you please... none of that changes the fact that Terrell Davis was more dominant than Gale Sayers.Haven't you been around long enough to know that comparing a current/recent player with players from the 1950s and 1960s is comparing apples and oranges?
No, I think you know plenty about football. But I also think you lose objectivity when you post about Denver and its players. I think your opinions would be different if Davis had played for another team and had the same accomplishments.Personally, I see that as pretty darn close (with Davis getting the decided edge), but apparently I don't know that much about football.
Delusions Of Adequacy
Footballguy
Marc, nobody ever said TD didn't deserve consideration. The question is whether he was a superior player long enough to deserve the HOF, and it's an honest question.
Delusions Of Adequacy
Footballguy
Safeties also get no love. There are 8 safeties in the HOF.
Tau837
Footballguy
That's why I don't think Butler will get serious consideration, despite a stellar career.
Again with the SB ring argument. So I suppose Timmy Smith is a better candidate than Thurm? I do not believe Thurm was a product of the K-Gun - his abilities allowed the Bills to run that K-Gun offense. Kenneth Davis had some good games but no way the Bills would have been who they were without Thurman. Kelly & Levy admitted Thurm was the one who made that offense go. Sure he had some horrible SBs (lost helmet, fumble in 2nd Dallas game that changed that game) but had some huge playoff games - against Cle (Harmon dropped TD that cost Bills) he had 13 CATCHES for 150 yds & TD, ran for over 100 yds in each playoff game of 1st SB run and was best player on field - Norwood makes that kick & TT is MVP. Against KC he had over 180 yds & 3 TDs. Led the league in yds from scrimmage 4 straight yrs. Of the big 3 in early 90s he didn't have Barry's running ability or Emmitt's numbers and rings, but he was the most complete RB of the 3.
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
I was gonna respond, but SSOG just tore this argument a new one. So, I'll leave it alone except to agree 110% with SSOG's post.And, BTW, whether YOU want them to or not, HOF voters use such comparisons when voting.Haven't you been around long enough to know that comparing a current/recent player with players from the 1950s and 1960s is comparing apples and oranges?
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
That I agree with and never disagreed that his career *might be* too short for HOF conssideration. I just don't think it'll factor in anywhere near as much when his credientials are listed and folks start voting.But, there are a couple people here trying to pooh-pooh Davis' accomplishments IN THOSE THREE YEARS. I think Davis has PLENTY of NFL credentials to deserve consideration, even in such a short career. As SSOG pointed out, I think Davis compares favorably across eras to the RBs like Sayers and Campbell who had injury shortened careers. Even though we may not want them to, when the "injury shortened" point comes up, those are the RBs that the voters will be comparing Davis to. Although I appreciate Just Win Baby's backhanded way of saying I don't know football to try and defeat my point, that is the reality of voting. And, yes, JWB, you are correct that where the player was drafted is a silly point to raise.Just Win Baby - SSOG mentioned Priest b/c Priest lacks the credentials Davis does, yet he certainly dominated the RB position for 3 years or so (and I mentioned Priest as a viable candidate for the "too short a career" argument). I am pretty sure that was his point, but don't want to speak for him
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
BTW, it is the Pro Football Hall of Fame
Not the Pro Football Hall of Players With Long Careers.
TD = the most famous and storied RB in the transition of the NFL from Plan B free agency to unlimited free agency.
We may NEVER see RBs with careers as long as the guys from the 70s and 80s when those players were PRISONERS to their teams.
The fact that it has been nearly impossible to keep teams together will factor into HOF voting - dominance for 4 or 5 years at the RB spot will be enough when the average life for an NFL RB is now something like 3.5 years.
Not the Pro Football Hall of Players With Long Careers.
TD = the most famous and storied RB in the transition of the NFL from Plan B free agency to unlimited free agency.
We may NEVER see RBs with careers as long as the guys from the 70s and 80s when those players were PRISONERS to their teams.
The fact that it has been nearly impossible to keep teams together will factor into HOF voting - dominance for 4 or 5 years at the RB spot will be enough when the average life for an NFL RB is now something like 3.5 years.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
I agree that Davis is likely a worthy candidate, but I have a hard time inducting him but not players like Holmes or Sharpe (Sterling). Those two were just as dominant as Davis was. At this point, I don't even know if anyone even talks about Sharpe anymore.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
I'm not sure I agree that in 2006 having a short career won't hurt candidates. The guys on your short list player 40-50 years ago. Science and medicine have been much more proficient at patching people up and keeping them on the field. If Davis played in the 50s and 60s, having a short career would not have mattered as much as it may today.Dumbest argument ever when his career was injury shortened.List of RB entrants who had short careers
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
They don't.But, David, don't you think that Holmes' and Sharpe's lack of post-season credentials hurts them tremendously?Sharpe played in only two postseason games, though he played well, and Holmes' played in only one postseason game since 2000, and his team lost. My MAIN argument for why TD will get in is b/c of his post-season credentials (the honors he received - highlighted in SSOG's post - are influential as well).
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
See above - - my counter to that argument is that unlimited free agency has seen RBs' careers get shorter and shorter. It is simply much harder to keep teams together and, therefore, RBs' careers have been shortened due to offensive player turn over and injury.I'm not sure I agree that in 2006 having a short career won't hurt candidates. The guys on your short list player 40-50 years ago. Science and medicine have been much more proficient at patching people up and keeping them on the field. If Davis played in the 50s and 60s, having a short career would not have mattered as much as it may today.Dumbest argument ever when his career was injury shortened.List of RB entrants who had short careers
Last edited by a moderator:
Tau837
Footballguy
Glad there is something we can agree on.
Look closely at the wording of SSOG's statement and my response. I was responding to his assertion that there was no reason to think Davis wouldn't have continued to dominate if not for injury, and implied that was not true of Priest. That is what I had a problem with. It had nothing to do with which of them was more dominant for three years.
Last edited by a moderator:
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
OK - then I missed something there. My bad. I didn't get that assertion from his post, but I'll let y'all debate that out.
Look closely at the wording of SSOG's statement and my response. I was responding to his assertion that there was no reason to think Davis wouldn't have continued to dominate if not for injury, and implied that was not true of Priest. That is what I had a problem with. It had nothing to do with which of them was more dominant for three years.
Tau837
Footballguy
I have no idea what this means. Davis is less worthy than many RBs whose careers overlapped his own. What makes him more famous and "storied" than Emmitt, Sanders, Faulk, Bettis, Martin? Especially to the HOF voters... who are presumably much more knowledgeable about NFL football and its players than the general public.
Tau837
Footballguy
IMO you can't use lack of postseason opportunities as a negative, since reaching the postseason is based on more than the individual player in question. If a player gets there and plays poorly, that can be a negative. As an example, Tiki has been quite underwhelming in his postseason opportunities. And if a player gets there and dominates, like Davis, that is a positive.So IMO Sharpe and Priest aren't hurt by their lack of postseason "credentials", and Davis is very much helped by it. If it wasn't for Davis's postseason accomplishments, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It's just not enough.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Oh. So let's say Tom Brady never wins another Super Bowl and continues to put up similar numbers to what he has thus far. Can we also take away his postseason accomplishments when discussing his HoF worthiness? For me, the bottom line is Davis is possibly the most dominant postseason RB ever (he averaged 5.6 YPC in the postseason, a full yarder higher than his lifetime YPC of 4.6), and, like has been said already, had the greatest three-year run of any RB....EVER.
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
Their careers all started prior to unlimited FA - and you have mentioned three players (Faulk, Emmitt and Sanders) who are singularly associated with their teams in the same way Davis was.There are no RBs who were drafted since 1995 (when Davis was drafted) with such long *AND STORIED* careers. Curtis Martin is the only one to consider - and I think CuMar is highly likely to get in the HOF. LT and SA are getting close, but they BOTH need a lot more recognition (MVPs, POY, SB rings etc.) to warrant consideration alongside Davis.Davis represents the first of that "new" crop of RBs that include *some* RBs starting to get to lengthy careers - Edge, LT, SA, Portis, JLew, Fred Taylor - but none come close to Davis' accomplishments. Th enotable names since TD was drafted - and none, IMO< have had close to the career TD had in 4 years:Eddie GeorgeWarrick DunnTiki BarberCorey Dillon Fred TaylorEdgeRicky WilliamsJ-LewRon Dayne (
)SAlexanderLTDeuce McAllisterRudi JohnsonPortisWestbrook (I stopped here b/c the rest of the RBs obviously have 4 year careers or less)Some of these guys are heading towards possible HOF Carerers, NONE of them have had close to the kind of recognition and accolades in their entire careers that TD had in his three years of dominance.Not sure how you can argue he is less worthy than the RBs listed above.Jerome Bettis has been the classic representative on these boards AGAINST allowing people in to the HOF simply b/c they had long careers. The guy had an amazing career from 1993 through 2005 from the RB spot - very very lengthy. Not especially storied or dominant. IMO, length becomes important when you talk about a guy like Bettis - accomplishments become important when talking about guys like Eddie George. Davis did more in less time than guys who had more than a decade as NFL RBs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
Well then it is a good thing you aren't a HOF voter b/c post-season accomplishments are a HUGE factor in a player's success.I think I saw someone mention Brady - Montana, too.
Tau837
Footballguy
Did you read my post? There are 3 situations
layer didn't get postseason opportunities. Not a positive or negative IMO. Example: Sterling Sharpe.Player played poorly in his postseason opportunities. Negative. Example: Tiki.Player played well in his postseason opportunities. Positive. Example: Davis.It seems you are arguing the first point. That amounts to saying that it is Sterling Sharpe's fault that Green Bay didn't play in more postseasons during his career (they played in one postseason in his 7 years, and he was dominant in both games). Do you think it was his fault? If not, why penalize him when considering him for HOF consideration?(Note: I don't think Sterling Sharpe should be in the HOF, but I am illustrating my point, which you appear to be arguing.)
Tau837
Footballguy
Who's arguing that? I haven't seen anyone suggest that any of those players are more worthy than Davis is TODAY. I do think a few of them will be more worthy when their careers are complete.
Tau837
Footballguy
By the way, I think it is incorrect to group Davis with peers based on when his career started. It is more appropriate to group him with peers based on when his and their careers ended... since it is the end of their careers that determines when they become HOF eligible, and thus it is those older players with whom he will be compared for HOF consideration.
Marc Levin
Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
Yes - they did. But, exclusively in the regular season, and without as many in-season accolades as Davis had. On a side note, that Priest's record setting TD year was busted real soon after by SA will, IMO reduce his accomplishment in the eyes of the voters.I also disagree with JWB's point that their lack of post-season opps is not a negative. It is a HUGE negative when comparing those players for HOF nomination, even if it was not THEIR INDIVIDUAL fault they lacked post-season numbers. The fact remains that Davis HAS those numbers and they do NOT.I have heard (as you have heard) many HOF committee people talking about criteria when they decide who the final 15 candidates will be for HOF voting. One of the things they continually cite is their post-season success and their league accolades. They also continually cite holding the HOF nominee up to players in the same position who are already in the HOF.Davis has that IN SPADES over many RBs with much longer careers who will also have serious HOF consideration - CuMar and Bettis as examples.Look, we can argue their worthiness and never reach consensus.Let's argue what the HOF voters will be considering - length of career will factor into it. Davis' short career is a negative. The ONLY negative, IMO. I can certainly "see" a committee member saying Davis' career was too short to reach final 15 status - I just don;t see them actually using that as a reason to keep him from the final-15.After that happens, the whims of the voters come into play - and I simply don't see them failing to vote for Davis based on the fact that he had a short career. You all do - that is fine, but I'd like to see argument on THAT point, not his merit. His merit as a HOF finalist is, I believe, beyond question - and I sincerely doubt any will cite Campbell or Sayers as reasons he will NOT get in. On the contrary - I believe they will cite those two examples as reasons for Davis TO get in over some RBs with lengthier careers.It is what it is said:
Tau837
Footballguy
Well, if Brady's career ended due to injury after 2004, giving him 5 seasons to accommodate the fact that he didn't play as a rookie and get a comparable 4 year sample, he would have had 13,925 passing yards, 97 passing TDs, and 52 interceptions in 64 regular season games. Would such a player merit any HOF consideration based on those numbers? Absolutely not. So it would have been only his postseason accomplishments that would have earned him consideration.Then add Brady's postseason success, including 3 rings, a 9-0 record, 3 rings, and 2 Super Bowl MVPs. It would be an interesting test case to see if he'd get in. I suspect he would have made it, in large part due to the fact that he has been a media darling and because he plays QB, meaning he gets a disproportionate amount of credit for winning. It wouldn't have hurt him that, had his career ended after 2004, he would have become HOF eligible in 2010, in a relatively dead period for HOF QB selections (Aikman in 2006, and no one else but Favre on the horizon).Unfortunately for Davis, he doesn't have quite as compelling a postseason case. In this scenario, Brady would have never lost in the postseason; Davis did, albeit only once. But RBs don't get as much credit for record as QBs anyway. Brady won 3 Super Bowls, Davis 2. More importantly, Brady led the game winning drive in the Super Bowl twice. Brady won 2 Super Bowl MVPs, Davis 1. Brady had an uncompelling surrounding cast, giving a perception that he (and Belichick) "lifted" them; Davis was surrounded by great players.I think it would have been very close for Brady, but he would have gotten in. Good example, but I don't think Davis quite measures up in the postseason.Now... Brady is obviously still playing. So there is every likelihood that he will continue to build a stronger HOF case. So to answer your original question, if he never wins another Super Bowl, he'll still likely make the HOF. But his case will be different than Davis, in that he had the stellar postseason accomplishments while also building a longer career as a Pro Bowl caliber player.And by the way, I never said to "take away" Davis's postseason accomplishments. I said they are his most compelling argument, and they are not enough, given that his career was cut short. I'm not sure why you think I said to take them away.
Similar threads
