2014 Hall of Famers announced - '15 class now being discussed (1 Viewer)

[MoveToSkypager]

I'll also be sad if Bettis gets in over TD. If Bettis gets in, we should let in Vinny Greenhead in and kick out Steve Young.

Prepare to be sad.

Bettis will get in. Isn't he top-10 of all-time rushers? There's probably 10 guys behind him on that list that are all in the Hall.

The HOF is as much of a lifetime achievement award as it is about being great, and great in big moments. The Bus will get into the Hall... bet on it.

Bettis = Vinny Testaverde

Except that he's been to many more Pro-Bowls, been a 1st team All-Pro (twice), has a Super Bowl ring, and he's going into the Hall of Fame.

Other than that, yeah... I can see a few similarities.

If we're going to cherry pick players that got (or will get) robbed of their HOF opportunities because of career ending injuries, my vote goes to William Andrews.

Bettis' career ending injury was that he got fat. What are you talking about?

 

[Dizzy]

I'll also be sad if Bettis gets in over TD. If Bettis gets in, we should let in Vinny Greenhead in and kick out Steve Young.

Prepare to be sad.

Bettis will get in. Isn't he top-10 of all-time rushers? There's probably 10 guys behind him on that list that are all in the Hall.

The HOF is as much of a lifetime achievement award as it is about being great, and great in big moments. The Bus will get into the Hall... bet on it.

Bettis = Vinny Testaverde

Except that he's been to many more Pro-Bowls, been a 1st team All-Pro (twice), has a Super Bowl ring, and he's going into the Hall of Fame.

Other than that, yeah... I can see a few similarities.

If we're going to cherry pick players that got (or will get) robbed of their HOF opportunities because of career ending injuries, my vote goes to William Andrews.

Bettis' career ending injury was that he got fat. What are you talking about?

I don't get it.

 

[pecorino]

just checked out the stats for Bettis. i think he did more than enough to get in to the Hall: Eight 1000-yard seasons, sixth all-time rusher in yardage, offensive ROY, six pro bowls, three-time all pro. sure, he wasn't flashy but he's definitely on the short-list of 'best big backs ever' ranking imo behind Jim Brown and comparable to John Riggins. he should get in.

 

[Dizzy]

just checked out the stats for Bettis. i think he did more than enough to get in to the Hall: Eight 1000-yard seasons, sixth all-time rusher in yardage, offensive ROY, six pro bowls, three-time all pro. sure, he wasn't flashy but he's definitely on the short-list of 'best big backs ever' ranking imo behind Jim Brown and comparable to John Riggins. he should get in.

Agree completely. Outside of Steelers-haters, I think that most folks see Bettis going into the HOF at some point. I think it happens this time around.

 

[Premier]

As a Bucs fan I love Dungy but it was simply time for him to go. Gruden brought in a different attitude and atmosphere and even the players acknowledge they probably needed that to get over the hump.

Dungy is one of the greatest figures in the franchise's history and I hope he gets into the Hall, but it was time for him to go after 2001. One does not negate the other.

 

[Ghost Rider]

just checked out the stats for Bettis. i think he did more than enough to get in to the Hall: Eight 1000-yard seasons, sixth all-time rusher in yardage, offensive ROY, six pro bowls, three-time all pro. sure, he wasn't flashy but he's definitely on the short-list of 'best big backs ever' ranking imo behind Jim Brown and comparable to John Riggins. he should get in.

Pro bowls are overrated. Note that his last pro bowl appearance was when he ran 941 yards and averaged 3.8 YPC in 2004. He was like the 4th alternate or something, and only made it cause literally three or four guys were injured and/or didn't want to go. Yeah, real impressive, that pro bowl season. Bettis is the textbook definition of a compiler.

But I do think that voters will, unfortunately, let him in eventually. Being a Steeler sure helps (borderline candidates from marquee franchises always have a much better chance than other players), as does being part of the media now, as he can make friends with those who are voting.

 

[mad sweeney]

Of the "first ballot" guys, I think Derrick Brooks and Dungy are locks... Brooks for his play and Dungy because everyone loves him (not to take anything away from his coaching accomplishments). Walter Jones should be a lock as well IMO, but will probably have to wait. Strong arguments can be made for Marvin Harrison and Shaun Alexander as well, but I think their day may come down the road.

Best of the rest... I would not be surprised to see Bettis, Jacoby, and Strahan. All three are very deserving, but so are a lot of guys on that list.

I love Terrell Davis and Sterling Sharpe. I think both were two of the best ever at their positions. HOF to me though is about longevity as much as performance, so I just don't think either will ever get in based on their careers getting cut short.

The Jags and Texans have a better chance at playing each other in the Superbowl this year than of Jones not getting in this year.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

I'll also be sad if Bettis gets in over TD. If Bettis gets in, we should let in Vinny Greenhead in and kick out Steve Young.

Prepare to be sad.

Bettis will get in. Isn't he top-10 of all-time rushers? There's probably 10 guys behind him on that list that are all in the Hall.

The HOF is as much of a lifetime achievement award as it is about being great, and great in big moments. The Bus will get into the Hall... bet on it.

Bettis = Vinny Testaverde

Except that he's been to many more Pro-Bowls, been a 1st team All-Pro (twice), has a Super Bowl ring, and he's going into the Hall of Fame.

Other than that, yeah... I can see a few similarities.

If we're going to cherry pick players that got (or will get) robbed of their HOF opportunities because of career ending injuries, my vote goes to William Andrews.

Bettis' career ending injury was that he got fat. What are you talking about?

I don't get it.

Thought you were talking about Bettis

You are talking about cherry picking players that were robbed on HOF opportunities. That doesn't apply to TD. No cherry picking necessary, but I know that type of language is something that you have to use due to your limitations.

 

[Hooper31]

If anyone could possibly doubt Walter Jones worthiness of being a first ballot HOFer. Here are some relevant numbers from Terry Blount at ESPN.

• In 13 NFL seasons with Seattle, Jones started all 180 games he played, a remarkable achievement in itself for any lineman. Receiver Steve Largent is the only player who started more games for Seattle at 197.

• Jones was on the field at left tackle for 5,703 pass attempts, but he was called for holding only nine times. That’s only once in every 633 passes or .0016 percent.

• According to coaching statistics, Jones was beaten for a sack only 23 times. That’s less than twice a season. Some tackles get beat for a sack twice a game or more. Jones allowed his quarterback to be sacked only once in every 248 pass attempts or .004 percent of the time.

• Jones was voted into nine Pro Bowls and was a six-time Associated Press All-Pro. He also was voted to the NFL’s All Decade team for 2000-10. In 2005, Sporting News listed Jones as the best player in the NFL at any position.

• The Seahawks retired Jones’ No. 71, joining Largent and defensive tackle Cortez Kennedyas the only Seattle players to earn that honor. And former Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire declared April 30, 2010 at Walter Jones Day across the state, which says more about the quiet giant off the field than it does about his accomplishments on the field.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I have a serious question for you, and I want an honest answer. Let's say that after Terrell Davis got injured in 1999, he had managed to come back and play 9 more seasons as a much more limited version of himself. Let's say that in those 9 seasons, he averaged 230 carries for 850 yards, good for 3.7 yards per carry. Say he chipped in another 100 receiving yards through the air, and got maybe 6.5 TDs a year, on average.

Now, those per-season averages are pretty much identical to what Vick Ballard and Mikel Leshoure put up in 2012. Ballard had 211/814 rushing (3.9 per carry) with another 150 receiving and 3 TDs. LeShoure had 215/798 rushing (3.7 per carry) with 214 receiving and 9 TDs. So, basically, imagine Terrell Davis managed to rehab enough from his injury to give us a decade of Vick Ballard or Mikel LeShoure.

This hypothetical version of Terrell Davis would rank 4th in career rushing yards and 3rd in career rushing TDs. Would you say this hypothetical version of Terrell Davis was a Hall of Famer? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm honestly curious to hear what you think.

I don't think the hypothetical is useful, because no one will hang around the NFL 9 years getting 230 carries at 3.7 yards a carry. The closest is Jerome Bettis, who had four seasons at the end of his career which sort of match the criteria. Eddie George had three. That's why there aren't a whole lot of mediocre running backs like that who have 10K yards. Neither of those guys has a strong Hall resume, but if Bettis didn't have his 2004 and 2005 (22 TDs, Super Bowl win) he'd have no chance at all.

So for Davis to get nine seasons of mediocre play, he'd have to be doing something amazing. If he got to play nine mediocre years because he had naked pictures of the owner's wife, I don't think it would improve his Hall credentials.

Good on you to pick up on Jerome Bettis. Those 9 extra hypothetical seasons I made up for Terrell Davis were Jerome Bettis's career totals outside of his four best seasons. Terrell Davis's four best seasons blow Jerome Bettis's four best seasons so far out of the water it's not even funny, so if Jerome Bettis is a Hall of Famer and Terrell Davis isn't, it must be those 9 years of 850 rushing yards at 3.7 yards a pop that make the difference.

 

[Adam Harstad]

To everyone who thinks Davis is not a Hall of Famer: would you enshrine Kurt Warner?

I'd like to see an argument that applies to Davis that doesn't also apply to Warner, and vice versa.

If Davis came back at age 38, finished #2 in the league in yardage, #3 in TDs, and took a franchise to its first-ever Super Bowl while scoring 11 TDs in the post-season, I'd put him in the Hall.

But since he doesn't have that, he's not the same player as Warner. Warner with just the St. Louis accomplishments would have been a borderline Hall of Famer only because he's a QB and because of the grocery bag story. WIth his whole career he's a shoo-in, unlike Davis.

Terrell Davis topped 1,000 rushing yards (the bare minimum production that really counts for an RB) four times.

Kurt Warner topped 3,000 passing yards (the bare minimum production that really counts for a QB) six times.

Terrell Davis topped 1,500 rushing yards (a good benchmark of RB excellence) three times.

Kurt Warner topped 4,000 passing yards (a good benchmark of QB excellence) three times.

Terrell Davis topped 10 AV four times.

Kurt Warner topped 10 AV six times.

Terrell Davis: 3 pro bowls, 3 1st team AP All Pros

Kurt Warner: 4 pro bowls, 2 1st team AP All Pros

Terrell Davis: 1 MVP, 2 OPoY, 1 SB MVP

Kurt Warner: 2 MVP, 1 SB MVP

Terrell Davis: 2 SB rings

Kurt Warner: 1 SB ring, two more SB appearances

Terrell Davis: greatest postseason runner in history (and it's not even close...)

Kurt Warner: Most passing yards in single SB. Also, 2nd most passing yards in a SB. Also, 3rd most passing yards in a SB.

Terrell Davis: 2nd team All-'90s RB

Kurt Warner: did not make any 1st or 2nd team all decade squads

Both resumes seem incredibly similar to me. Yes, there was a much larger gap between Kurt Warner's first good season and his last good season, but let's not mistake that for longevity. In between that first good season and that last good season, Kurt Warner got benched... three times. Teams let him walk away... twice. Warner basically had six competent seasons to Davis' four, but QB as a whole is a much longer-lived position than RB, and the standards for longevity are higher. Warner similarly ranks 44th in passing attempts, 29th in passing yards, and 28th in passing touchdowns, so he's buried on the career lists, too. Warner does rank 8th in passer rating and 4th in passing yards per game... but Davis ranks 4th in rushing yards per game, so that's a wash, too.

Kurt Warner is the Terrell Davis of quarterbacks. Or, if you prefer, Terrell Davis is the Kurt Warner of running backs. Mind-bogglingly high peak, terrible longevity, unprecedented postseason success, ridiculous amounts of hardware, fantastic feel-good story. In my mind, the arguments for including one are also the arguments for including the other (and, similarly, the arguments for excluding one are also arguments for excluding the other).

 

[Adam Harstad]

just checked out the stats for Bettis. i think he did more than enough to get in to the Hall: Eight 1000-yard seasons, sixth all-time rusher in yardage, offensive ROY, six pro bowls, three-time all pro. sure, he wasn't flashy but he's definitely on the short-list of 'best big backs ever' ranking imo behind Jim Brown and comparable to John Riggins. he should get in.

Jerome Bettis had four great seasons. For the rest of his career, he averaged 850 rushing yards (3.7 ypc) and 6.5 TDs a season.

 

[Adam Harstad]

To everyone who thinks Davis is not a Hall of Famer: would you enshrine Kurt Warner?

I'd like to see an argument that applies to Davis that doesn't also apply to Warner, and vice versa.

TD... great player, but his career was over in a blink. He had three great seasons... and that's just not enough to get in the HOF.

Same exact thing that will keep Sterling Sharpe out. He was an awesome WR, but his career was cut short, and that's that.

Kurt Warner probably not the best example to use. He would have a shot at getting in on his Super Bowl numbers alone. 10-year career, greatest show on turf, went to the SP with two different teams riding his arm... I would vote for Kurt Warner as a HOFer.

I'd put Sterling Sharpe in the Hall of Fame right now. If Sterling Sharpe had a league MVP, a SB MVP, two Offensive Player of the Year awards, every meaningful postseason record for a WR, and a pair rings, I'd put him in on the first ballot.

 

[Fariq]

To everyone who thinks Davis is not a Hall of Famer: would you enshrine Kurt Warner?

I'd like to see an argument that applies to Davis that doesn't also apply to Warner, and vice versa.

If Davis came back at age 38, finished #2 in the league in yardage, #3 in TDs, and took a franchise to its first-ever Super Bowl while scoring 11 TDs in the post-season, I'd put him in the Hall.

But since he doesn't have that, he's not the same player as Warner. Warner with just the St. Louis accomplishments would have been a borderline Hall of Famer only because he's a QB and because of the grocery bag story. WIth his whole career he's a shoo-in, unlike Davis.

Terrell Davis topped 1,000 rushing yards (the bare minimum production that really counts for an RB) four times.

Kurt Warner topped 3,000 passing yards (the bare minimum production that really counts for a QB) six times.

Terrell Davis topped 1,500 rushing yards (a good benchmark of RB excellence) three times.

Kurt Warner topped 4,000 passing yards (a good benchmark of QB excellence) three times.

Terrell Davis topped 10 AV four times.

Kurt Warner topped 10 AV six times.

Terrell Davis: 3 pro bowls, 3 1st team AP All Pros

Kurt Warner: 4 pro bowls, 2 1st team AP All Pros

Terrell Davis: 1 MVP, 2 OPoY, 1 SB MVP

Kurt Warner: 2 MVP, 1 SB MVP

Terrell Davis: 2 SB rings

Kurt Warner: 1 SB ring, two more SB appearances

Terrell Davis: greatest postseason runner in history (and it's not even close...)

Kurt Warner: Most passing yards in single SB. Also, 2nd most passing yards in a SB. Also, 3rd most passing yards in a SB.

Terrell Davis: 2nd team All-'90s RB

Kurt Warner: did not make any 1st or 2nd team all decade squads

Both resumes seem incredibly similar to me. Yes, there was a much larger gap between Kurt Warner's first good season and his last good season, but let's not mistake that for longevity. In between that first good season and that last good season, Kurt Warner got benched... three times. Teams let him walk away... twice. Warner basically had six competent seasons to Davis' four, but QB as a whole is a much longer-lived position than RB, and the standards for longevity are higher. Warner similarly ranks 44th in passing attempts, 29th in passing yards, and 28th in passing touchdowns, so he's buried on the career lists, too. Warner does rank 8th in passer rating and 4th in passing yards per game... but Davis ranks 4th in rushing yards per game, so that's a wash, too.

Kurt Warner is the Terrell Davis of quarterbacks. Or, if you prefer, Terrell Davis is the Kurt Warner of quarterbacks. Mind-bogglingly high peak, terrible longevity, unprecedented postseason success, ridiculous amounts of hardware, fantastic feel-good story. In my mind, the arguments for including one are also the arguments for including the other (and, similarly, the arguments for excluding one are also arguments for excluding the other).

The only thing I didn't like is that you listed all-pro seasons as part of the comparison.The Associated Press stupidly selects two halfbacks to its first team. Davis could have been the 2nd best RB and still have made the first team whereas Warner had to be considered the top QB to be voted to the first team.

 

[Adam Harstad]

To everyone who thinks Davis is not a Hall of Famer: would you enshrine Kurt Warner?

I'd like to see an argument that applies to Davis that doesn't also apply to Warner, and vice versa.

If Davis came back at age 38, finished #2 in the league in yardage, #3 in TDs, and took a franchise to its first-ever Super Bowl while scoring 11 TDs in the post-season, I'd put him in the Hall.

But since he doesn't have that, he's not the same player as Warner. Warner with just the St. Louis accomplishments would have been a borderline Hall of Famer only because he's a QB and because of the grocery bag story. WIth his whole career he's a shoo-in, unlike Davis.

Terrell Davis topped 1,000 rushing yards (the bare minimum production that really counts for an RB) four times.

Kurt Warner topped 3,000 passing yards (the bare minimum production that really counts for a QB) six times.

Terrell Davis topped 1,500 rushing yards (a good benchmark of RB excellence) three times.

Kurt Warner topped 4,000 passing yards (a good benchmark of QB excellence) three times.

Terrell Davis topped 10 AV four times.

Kurt Warner topped 10 AV six times.

Terrell Davis: 3 pro bowls, 3 1st team AP All Pros

Kurt Warner: 4 pro bowls, 2 1st team AP All Pros

Terrell Davis: 1 MVP, 2 OPoY, 1 SB MVP

Kurt Warner: 2 MVP, 1 SB MVP

Terrell Davis: 2 SB rings

Kurt Warner: 1 SB ring, two more SB appearances

Terrell Davis: greatest postseason runner in history (and it's not even close...)

Kurt Warner: Most passing yards in single SB. Also, 2nd most passing yards in a SB. Also, 3rd most passing yards in a SB.

Terrell Davis: 2nd team All-'90s RB

Kurt Warner: did not make any 1st or 2nd team all decade squads

Both resumes seem incredibly similar to me. Yes, there was a much larger gap between Kurt Warner's first good season and his last good season, but let's not mistake that for longevity. In between that first good season and that last good season, Kurt Warner got benched... three times. Teams let him walk away... twice. Warner basically had six competent seasons to Davis' four, but QB as a whole is a much longer-lived position than RB, and the standards for longevity are higher. Warner similarly ranks 44th in passing attempts, 29th in passing yards, and 28th in passing touchdowns, so he's buried on the career lists, too. Warner does rank 8th in passer rating and 4th in passing yards per game... but Davis ranks 4th in rushing yards per game, so that's a wash, too.

Kurt Warner is the Terrell Davis of quarterbacks. Or, if you prefer, Terrell Davis is the Kurt Warner of quarterbacks. Mind-bogglingly high peak, terrible longevity, unprecedented postseason success, ridiculous amounts of hardware, fantastic feel-good story. In my mind, the arguments for including one are also the arguments for including the other (and, similarly, the arguments for excluding one are also arguments for excluding the other).

The only thing I didn't like is that you listed all-pro seasons as part of the comparison.The Associated Press stupidly selects two halfbacks to its first team. Davis could have been the 2nd best RB and still have made the first team whereas Warner had to be considered the top QB to be voted to the first team.

That's actually a very fair point, and I'm all for adjusting awards based on what percentile they represent (example: a much higher percentage of starting QBs make the pro bowl than, say, starting DEs). In this particular case, it doesn't do much to help Warner. Even if we expand his resume to include 1st and 2nd team AP All Pros (vs. just 1st team for Davis), it won't make a difference; Warner was never a 2nd-team AP All Pro, so he'd still only have the two combined 1st or 2nd string AP All Pro awards. In fact, as far as I can tell, Warner wasn't given any postseason awards by any outfit in any seasons except for 1999 and 2001 (exception: won Walter Peyton Man of the Year in 2008).

 

[CalBear]

I have a serious question for you, and I want an honest answer. Let's say that after Terrell Davis got injured in 1999, he had managed to come back and play 9 more seasons as a much more limited version of himself. Let's say that in those 9 seasons, he averaged 230 carries for 850 yards, good for 3.7 yards per carry. Say he chipped in another 100 receiving yards through the air, and got maybe 6.5 TDs a year, on average.

Now, those per-season averages are pretty much identical to what Vick Ballard and Mikel Leshoure put up in 2012. Ballard had 211/814 rushing (3.9 per carry) with another 150 receiving and 3 TDs. LeShoure had 215/798 rushing (3.7 per carry) with 214 receiving and 9 TDs. So, basically, imagine Terrell Davis managed to rehab enough from his injury to give us a decade of Vick Ballard or Mikel LeShoure.

This hypothetical version of Terrell Davis would rank 4th in career rushing yards and 3rd in career rushing TDs. Would you say this hypothetical version of Terrell Davis was a Hall of Famer? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm honestly curious to hear what you think.

I don't think the hypothetical is useful, because no one will hang around the NFL 9 years getting 230 carries at 3.7 yards a carry. The closest is Jerome Bettis, who had four seasons at the end of his career which sort of match the criteria. Eddie George had three. That's why there aren't a whole lot of mediocre running backs like that who have 10K yards. Neither of those guys has a strong Hall resume, but if Bettis didn't have his 2004 and 2005 (22 TDs, Super Bowl win) he'd have no chance at all.

So for Davis to get nine seasons of mediocre play, he'd have to be doing something amazing. If he got to play nine mediocre years because he had naked pictures of the owner's wife, I don't think it would improve his Hall credentials.

Good on you to pick up on Jerome Bettis. Those 9 extra hypothetical seasons I made up for Terrell Davis were Jerome Bettis's career totals outside of his four best seasons. Terrell Davis's four best seasons blow Jerome Bettis's four best seasons so far out of the water it's not even funny, so if Jerome Bettis is a Hall of Famer and Terrell Davis isn't, it must be those 9 years of 850 rushing yards at 3.7 yards a pop that make the difference.

Part of what the Hall of Fame is about is, well, fame. Bettis and Warner's career arcs made them more famous than TD, partly because they had longer careers. The hero's journey, despair and redemption, is part of what makes a player memorable; Bettis and Warner's late-career resurgences were great stories that people responded to (and Warner already started out that way). TD just didn't have that much of that. He was amazing, he got hurt, he was gone.

I don't think there's any doubt that Bettis is more famous than TD. You might say that's not fair, and you might have an argument, but that's why Bettis is likely to get in and TD is not. And I don't think bringing in Warner is at all helping your case; he's going in first ballot and without controversy.

 

[Ghost Rider]

When did Bettis have a late-career resurgence? If you want to point at his 13 touchdowns in 2004, when he still ran for under 1,000 yards and had a subpar YPC, then that is not much to brag about, unless that awesome game he had Week 1 - 5 carries for 1 yard and 3 touchdowns - is what you are thinking about.

 

[CalBear]

When did Bettis have a late-career resurgence? If you want to point at his 13 touchdowns in 2004, when he still ran for under 1,000 yards and had a subpar YPC, then that is not much to brag about, unless that awesome game he had Week 1 - 5 carries for 1 yard and 3 touchdowns - is what you are thinking about.

He had 22 regular-season TDs in his last two years (finishing #4 in 2004 and #10 in 2005), as well as five post-season TDs. He is in the top 5 all-time in rushing TDs at age 30+ or 32+.

I should note, I don't think Bettis is a particularly strong Hall candidate, but I think he'll get in because he is among the most famous running backs, he had a long, notable career, and retired after winning a Super Bowl. His story's a lot better than TD's.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Scoring a lot of touchdowns when you are the backup situational RB doesn't really count as a late-career resurgence.

And let's not forget that the only noteworthy play he made in the Steelers postseason run to the Super Bowl was his fumble against the Colts that would have went down as one of the biggest gag plays of all-time had Roethlisberger not made a great play to prevent the Indy defender from taking it the distance.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I have a serious question for you, and I want an honest answer. Let's say that after Terrell Davis got injured in 1999, he had managed to come back and play 9 more seasons as a much more limited version of himself. Let's say that in those 9 seasons, he averaged 230 carries for 850 yards, good for 3.7 yards per carry. Say he chipped in another 100 receiving yards through the air, and got maybe 6.5 TDs a year, on average.

Now, those per-season averages are pretty much identical to what Vick Ballard and Mikel Leshoure put up in 2012. Ballard had 211/814 rushing (3.9 per carry) with another 150 receiving and 3 TDs. LeShoure had 215/798 rushing (3.7 per carry) with 214 receiving and 9 TDs. So, basically, imagine Terrell Davis managed to rehab enough from his injury to give us a decade of Vick Ballard or Mikel LeShoure.

This hypothetical version of Terrell Davis would rank 4th in career rushing yards and 3rd in career rushing TDs. Would you say this hypothetical version of Terrell Davis was a Hall of Famer? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm honestly curious to hear what you think.

I don't think the hypothetical is useful, because no one will hang around the NFL 9 years getting 230 carries at 3.7 yards a carry. The closest is Jerome Bettis, who had four seasons at the end of his career which sort of match the criteria. Eddie George had three. That's why there aren't a whole lot of mediocre running backs like that who have 10K yards. Neither of those guys has a strong Hall resume, but if Bettis didn't have his 2004 and 2005 (22 TDs, Super Bowl win) he'd have no chance at all.

So for Davis to get nine seasons of mediocre play, he'd have to be doing something amazing. If he got to play nine mediocre years because he had naked pictures of the owner's wife, I don't think it would improve his Hall credentials.

Good on you to pick up on Jerome Bettis. Those 9 extra hypothetical seasons I made up for Terrell Davis were Jerome Bettis's career totals outside of his four best seasons. Terrell Davis's four best seasons blow Jerome Bettis's four best seasons so far out of the water it's not even funny, so if Jerome Bettis is a Hall of Famer and Terrell Davis isn't, it must be those 9 years of 850 rushing yards at 3.7 yards a pop that make the difference.

Part of what the Hall of Fame is about is, well, fame. Bettis and Warner's career arcs made them more famous than TD, partly because they had longer careers. The hero's journey, despair and redemption, is part of what makes a player memorable; Bettis and Warner's late-career resurgences were great stories that people responded to (and Warner already started out that way). TD just didn't have that much of that. He was amazing, he got hurt, he was gone.

I don't think there's any doubt that Bettis is more famous than TD. You might say that's not fair, and you might have an argument, but that's why Bettis is likely to get in and TD is not. And I don't think bringing in Warner is at all helping your case; he's going in first ballot and without controversy.

Was Jerome Bettis really more famous than Terrell Davis? And if fame is what matters, why did Curtis Martin get in before either of those guys, since he's much less famous than either. Also, are we really pulling up the "It's the Hall of FAME" argument, here? That's one of the most selectively applied arguments I've seen. Nobody argues that Pat Tillman should be in, despite Tillman being arguably the most famous safety in modern history. Ditto that for Bo Jackson (or, for that matter, Tim Tebow). Michael Vick was perhaps the most marketable player the league had ever seen, and then the dogfighting conviction made him a household name even among people who don't know anything else about football. Nobody much minds that "fame" part when they call Joe Namath the least deserving QB in the Hall. If a player's candidacy falls back on the "fame" argument, then that player's not a Hall of Famer. Just my opinion. I mean, if SBXL had been played in Miami instead of Detroit, then nobody would have given a damn about Jerome Bettis' final season. Something as arbitrary as the location of a superbowl should not solely determine whether or not a player is a Hall of Famer.

Regarding Kurt Warner: He's going in on the first ballot without any controversy despite having a resume that's virtually identical to Terrell Davis'. This is exactly my point.

 

[Fariq]

To everyone who thinks Davis is not a Hall of Famer: would you enshrine Kurt Warner?

I'd like to see an argument that applies to Davis that doesn't also apply to Warner, and vice versa.

If Davis came back at age 38, finished #2 in the league in yardage, #3 in TDs, and took a franchise to its first-ever Super Bowl while scoring 11 TDs in the post-season, I'd put him in the Hall.

But since he doesn't have that, he's not the same player as Warner. Warner with just the St. Louis accomplishments would have been a borderline Hall of Famer only because he's a QB and because of the grocery bag story. WIth his whole career he's a shoo-in, unlike Davis.

Terrell Davis topped 1,000 rushing yards (the bare minimum production that really counts for an RB) four times.

Kurt Warner topped 3,000 passing yards (the bare minimum production that really counts for a QB) six times.

Terrell Davis topped 1,500 rushing yards (a good benchmark of RB excellence) three times.

Kurt Warner topped 4,000 passing yards (a good benchmark of QB excellence) three times.

Terrell Davis topped 10 AV four times.

Kurt Warner topped 10 AV six times.

Terrell Davis: 3 pro bowls, 3 1st team AP All Pros

Kurt Warner: 4 pro bowls, 2 1st team AP All Pros

Terrell Davis: 1 MVP, 2 OPoY, 1 SB MVP

Kurt Warner: 2 MVP, 1 SB MVP

Terrell Davis: 2 SB rings

Kurt Warner: 1 SB ring, two more SB appearances

Terrell Davis: greatest postseason runner in history (and it's not even close...)

Kurt Warner: Most passing yards in single SB. Also, 2nd most passing yards in a SB. Also, 3rd most passing yards in a SB.

Terrell Davis: 2nd team All-'90s RB

Kurt Warner: did not make any 1st or 2nd team all decade squads

Both resumes seem incredibly similar to me. Yes, there was a much larger gap between Kurt Warner's first good season and his last good season, but let's not mistake that for longevity. In between that first good season and that last good season, Kurt Warner got benched... three times. Teams let him walk away... twice. Warner basically had six competent seasons to Davis' four, but QB as a whole is a much longer-lived position than RB, and the standards for longevity are higher. Warner similarly ranks 44th in passing attempts, 29th in passing yards, and 28th in passing touchdowns, so he's buried on the career lists, too. Warner does rank 8th in passer rating and 4th in passing yards per game... but Davis ranks 4th in rushing yards per game, so that's a wash, too.

Kurt Warner is the Terrell Davis of quarterbacks. Or, if you prefer, Terrell Davis is the Kurt Warner of quarterbacks. Mind-bogglingly high peak, terrible longevity, unprecedented postseason success, ridiculous amounts of hardware, fantastic feel-good story. In my mind, the arguments for including one are also the arguments for including the other (and, similarly, the arguments for excluding one are also arguments for excluding the other).

The only thing I didn't like is that you listed all-pro seasons as part of the comparison.The Associated Press stupidly selects two halfbacks to its first team. Davis could have been the 2nd best RB and still have made the first team whereas Warner had to be considered the top QB to be voted to the first team.

That's actually a very fair point, and I'm all for adjusting awards based on what percentile they represent (example: a much higher percentage of starting QBs make the pro bowl than, say, starting DEs). In this particular case, it doesn't do much to help Warner. Even if we expand his resume to include 1st and 2nd team AP All Pros (vs. just 1st team for Davis), it won't make a difference; Warner was never a 2nd-team AP All Pro, so he'd still only have the two combined 1st or 2nd string AP All Pro awards. In fact, as far as I can tell, Warner wasn't given any postseason awards by any outfit in any seasons except for 1999 and 2001 (exception: won Walter Peyton Man of the Year in 2008).

Yeah, I didn't think it would change the Warner number. I thought it would have changed the Davis number. Sanders was the best RB in '97. I think Davis only had one season ('98) where he was the #1 ball carrier.

 

[Fariq]

Some thoughts...

Martin- consistent runner, good pass receiver, excellent in blitz pick up (has to be in top five all-time in this department), class act

Bettis- had 2 or 3 elite seasons and a bunch of very good seasons, didn't offer much as a receiver, was known as goal line back, yet he only had one more rushing TD than Martin, had a dreadful season with the Rams, was popular with fans and media

Davis- had three elite seasons, one very good season, and some incomplete seasons, his only competition for best postseason ever at RB is Riggins in '82 (good arguments can be made either way)

 

[sn0mm1s]

Neither Martin or Bettis deserved the HOF . Both were below league average in YPC for their careers and were never considered to be among the league's elite while they played. I expect a HOFer to have periods of dominance that separates them from their peers. Both were consistently in that 2nd tier of RBs. While they played I would put their peaks behind Sanders, Smith, Tomlinson, Davis, Faulk, Holmes, Green, Barber, James, Alexander, and Portis off the top of my head. Combined they only lead the league in any major statistical category once (Martin won a rushing title) and that was a gift given to him by Holmgren (who pissed off Alexander by not letting him gain 2 yards). I would take Dillon over either of them and I am sure many would take Fred Taylor as well.

 

[MrSoup]

Walter Jones

Michael Strahan

Derrick Brooks

Jerome Bettis

Tim Brown

 

[CalBear]

Was Jerome Bettis really more famous than Terrell Davis? And if fame is what matters, why did Curtis Martin get in before either of those guys, since he's much less famous than either. Also, are we really pulling up the "It's the Hall of FAME" argument, here? That's one of the most selectively applied arguments I've seen. Nobody argues that Pat Tillman should be in, despite Tillman being arguably the most famous safety in modern history. Ditto that for Bo Jackson (or, for that matter, Tim Tebow). Michael Vick was perhaps the most marketable player the league had ever seen, and then the dogfighting conviction made him a household name even among people who don't know anything else about football. Nobody much minds that "fame" part when they call Joe Namath the least deserving QB in the Hall. If a player's candidacy falls back on the "fame" argument, then that player's not a Hall of Famer. Just my opinion. I mean, if SBXL had been played in Miami instead of Detroit, then nobody would have given a damn about Jerome Bettis' final season. Something as arbitrary as the location of a superbowl should not solely determine whether or not a player is a Hall of Famer.

Regarding Kurt Warner: He's going in on the first ballot without any controversy despite having a resume that's virtually identical to Terrell Davis'. This is exactly my point.

Yes, Bettis was and is more famous than TD, outside of Denver that is. My mom knew who "The Bus" was.

Joe Namath may be the least deserving Hall of Famer, but he's in the Hall of Fame, as is Gale Sayers. "Fame" is clearly not the only factor voters use to decide, but it's obvious that the guys you list would be more likely to make the Hall than a less-famous person with the same career stats (with the exception of Vick, whose fame would be more likely to keep him out).

I think you're missing something fundamental when you compare Davis to Warner. Essentially, your assertion is that Hall of Fame inclusion should be based on the statistics earned in the best years of a player's career, and the rest of the career has no value. There's also an implication that situation doesn't matter, that the fact that Warner took two entirely different teams to the Super Bowl is equivalent to Davis going to the Super Bowl twice with the same team (which had an elite defense and a HOF QB).

Looking at who's in the Hall, it's pretty clear Hall voters don't agree with you.

 

[cstu]

Neither Martin or Bettis deserved the HOF . Both were below league average in YPC for their careers and were never considered to be among the league's elite while they played. I expect a HOFer to have periods of dominance that separates them from their peers. Both were consistently in that 2nd tier of RBs. While they played I would put their peaks behind Sanders, Smith, Tomlinson, Davis, Faulk, Holmes, Green, Barber, James, Alexander, and Portis off the top of my head. Combined they only lead the league in any major statistical category once (Martin won a rushing title) and that was a gift given to him by Holmgren (who pissed off Alexander by not letting him gain 2 yards). I would take Dillon over either of them and I am sure many would take Fred Taylor as well.

In 8 years Martin had six top 10 rushing seasons - 3, 9, 8, 8, 2, 2, and 1. He also had 40+ catches in 9 straight seasons.

 

[Ghost Rider]

There is no way that Martin was a compiler. He had seven season of 1,200 rushing yards (which is a better benchmark for greatness than 1,000) or more. To make a comparison to other RBs from that era:

Martin - 7

Bettis - 4

Dillon - 5

Taylor - 6

Tomlinson - 7

Alexander - 4

Faulk - 5 (although this is skewed by the fact that he was always used a ton in the passing game)

George - 5

So, by that measuring stick, Martin compares very favorably to his peers.

 

[Fariq]

To contend that Martin was not as good as Alexander, Green, Barber, George and Bettis is to indicate that the claimant did not watch much NFL action from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s.

 

[Hooper31]

To contend that Martin was not as good as Alexander, Green, Barber, George and Bettis is to indicate that the claimant did not watch much NFL action from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s.

Alexander is the poster child for statistics given and not earned. He got to run behind Walter Jones and Steve Hutchinson. Both are miles ahead of Alexander in HOF worthiness. To say that Martin was not as good as Alexander is horribly insulting.

 

[Dentist]

Bus will get in.. career arc very similar to Marcus Allen (one of the first big complilers who was also famous and gets credit for his Heismann and Super Bowl epic run)

I hate it.. but true

 

[LarryAllen'sJockstrap]

Bus will get in.. career arc very similar to Marcus Allen (one of the first big complilers who was also famous and gets credit for his Heismann and Super Bowl epic run)

I hate it.. but true

Allen had 50 more TDs than the bus. Bettis was a good RB. Allen is closer to a Marshall Faulk. Allen had a far superior career AV over Bettis, due to the TDs and receiving despite having an 8-3 disadvantage in terms of 1000 yard rushing seasons.

 

[sn0mm1s]

To contend that Martin was not as good as Alexander, Green, Barber, George and Bettis is to indicate that the claimant did not watch much NFL action from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s.

Never said anything about George or Bettis. Martin is better than both of them. Barber has a 7 year stretch that is better than anything Martin ever did. Alexander and Green have similar 5 year stretches. The only things notable about Martin is durability and his incredible ability to hold on to the ball.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Bus will get in.. career arc very similar to Marcus Allen (one of the first big complilers who was also famous and gets credit for his Heismann and Super Bowl epic run)

I hate it.. but true

Allen had 50 more TDs than the bus. Bettis was a good RB. Allen is closer to a Marshall Faulk. Allen had a far superior career AV over Bettis, due to the TDs and receiving despite having an 8-3 disadvantage in terms of 1000 yard rushing seasons.

Allen played like a 30 year old Tomlinson for a dozen years. Definition of a compiler.

 

[LarryAllen'sJockstrap]

To contend that Martin was not as good as Alexander, Green, Barber, George and Bettis is to indicate that the claimant did not watch much NFL action from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s.

Alexander is the poster child for statistics given and not earned. He got to run behind Walter Jones and Steve Hutchinson. Both are miles ahead of Alexander in HOF worthiness. To say that Martin was not as good as Alexander is horribly insulting.

I agree with you comment to a certain degree. Same can be said for Emmitt Smith too.Alexander was a guy who got a late start (24) and was finished by 29. Earl Campbell is nearly statistically identically to SA over their career totals and rhythms. Earl was a 24 year old rookie out of gas by 28.

I don't think you can give SA a pass for having two HOF worthy o-lineman in front of him. Setting the all time record for total TDs in a season, 5 straight years of 1000 rushing yards, 5 straight years of 1600 total yards and an 1880 yard rushing year to boot (11th all-time). He also finished 33rd all time in touches, and 14th al time in R/R TDs. He gets a bad rap for being soft, or avoiding contact, but the guys numbers put him in the top 15-20 RBs ever.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Neither Martin or Bettis deserved the HOF . Both were below league average in YPC for their careers and were never considered to be among the league's elite while they played. I expect a HOFer to have periods of dominance that separates them from their peers. Both were consistently in that 2nd tier of RBs. While they played I would put their peaks behind Sanders, Smith, Tomlinson, Davis, Faulk, Holmes, Green, Barber, James, Alexander, and Portis off the top of my head. Combined they only lead the league in any major statistical category once (Martin won a rushing title) and that was a gift given to him by Holmgren (who pissed off Alexander by not letting him gain 2 yards). I would take Dillon over either of them and I am sure many would take Fred Taylor as well.

This is crazy talk regarding Martin.

This comes up in every Hall of Fame thread, but one metric I like is "cumulative top-5 finishes" (or, if you'd rather, "cumulative top-10 finishes"). It rewards excellence rather than compiling, but still rewards long careers (because long careers = lots and lots of opportunities to ring up some top finishes). Using that metric, depending on which categories you want to use (carries, rushing yards, yards from scrimmage, rushing TDs, total TDs, yards per carry, whatever) and which threshold you want to use (top 3, top 5, top 10), Curtis Martin and Terrell Davis will almost always come out in a virtual tie with Jerome Bettis sitting well back from the two.

 

[mad sweeney]

If anyone could possibly doubt Walter Jones worthiness of being a first ballot HOFer. Here are some relevant numbers from Terry Blount at ESPN.

• In 13 NFL seasons with Seattle, Jones started all 180 games he played, a remarkable achievement in itself for any lineman. Receiver Steve Largent is the only player who started more games for Seattle at 197. • Jones was on the field at left tackle for 5,703 pass attempts, but he was called for holding only nine times. That’s only once in every 633 passes or .0016 percent.

• According to coaching statistics, Jones was beaten for a sack only 23 times. That’s less than twice a season. Some tackles get beat for a sack twice a game or more. Jones allowed his quarterback to be sacked only once in every 248 pass attempts or .004 percent of the time.

• Jones was voted into nine Pro Bowls and was a six-time Associated Press All-Pro. He also was voted to the NFL’s All Decade team for 2000-10. In 2005, Sporting News listed Jones as the best player in the NFL at any position.

• The Seahawks retired Jones’ No. 71, joining Largent and defensive tackle Cortez Kennedyas the only Seattle players to earn that honor. And former Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire declared April 30, 2010 at Walter Jones Day across the state, which says more about the quiet giant off the field than it does about his accomplishments on the field.

Two of those sacks came in his last game when he was trying to play through the injuries that forced him out of the game. And they were to DeMarcus Ware who won the DMVP that year. He really shouldn't have been playing, but it was almost impossible to get him to come out of a game. After that game he realized that he couldn't play at his level and was shut down and no procedures or amount of rest were enough to get him into playing shape again.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Was Jerome Bettis really more famous than Terrell Davis? And if fame is what matters, why did Curtis Martin get in before either of those guys, since he's much less famous than either. Also, are we really pulling up the "It's the Hall of FAME" argument, here? That's one of the most selectively applied arguments I've seen. Nobody argues that Pat Tillman should be in, despite Tillman being arguably the most famous safety in modern history. Ditto that for Bo Jackson (or, for that matter, Tim Tebow). Michael Vick was perhaps the most marketable player the league had ever seen, and then the dogfighting conviction made him a household name even among people who don't know anything else about football. Nobody much minds that "fame" part when they call Joe Namath the least deserving QB in the Hall. If a player's candidacy falls back on the "fame" argument, then that player's not a Hall of Famer. Just my opinion. I mean, if SBXL had been played in Miami instead of Detroit, then nobody would have given a damn about Jerome Bettis' final season. Something as arbitrary as the location of a superbowl should not solely determine whether or not a player is a Hall of Famer.

Regarding Kurt Warner: He's going in on the first ballot without any controversy despite having a resume that's virtually identical to Terrell Davis'. This is exactly my point.

Yes, Bettis was and is more famous than TD, outside of Denver that is. My mom knew who "The Bus" was.

Joe Namath may be the least deserving Hall of Famer, but he's in the Hall of Fame, as is Gale Sayers. "Fame" is clearly not the only factor voters use to decide, but it's obvious that the guys you list would be more likely to make the Hall than a less-famous person with the same career stats (with the exception of Vick, whose fame would be more likely to keep him out).

I think you're missing something fundamental when you compare Davis to Warner. Essentially, your assertion is that Hall of Fame inclusion should be based on the statistics earned in the best years of a player's career, and the rest of the career has no value. There's also an implication that situation doesn't matter, that the fact that Warner took two entirely different teams to the Super Bowl is equivalent to Davis going to the Super Bowl twice with the same team (which had an elite defense and a HOF QB).

Looking at who's in the Hall, it's pretty clear Hall voters don't agree with you.

Jerome Bettis is definitely more famous among people who don't follow football, but should the Hall of Fame be basing decisions on the thoughts of non-football fans? Again, Pat Tillman, Michael Vick, Tim Tebow, QED. ETA: Jacoby Jones might be the most "famous" receiver in the NFL right now. Q. E. D.

You're saying Warner is a Hall of Famer because of what he did in between his peak seasons? Again, he failed to top 3,000 yards. He only managed to climb to 29th on the all-time passing yardage list. He didn't do squat between his peak seasons except get benched and get cut. Also, if you're going to play the supporting cast card, how can you ignore the obvious elephant in the room? Kurt Warner's receivers during his only good seasons were Torry Holt/Isaac Bruce and Larry Fitzgerald/Anquan Boldin. Marc Bulger was much more effective in St. Louis after Warner left than Olandis Gary and Mike Anderson were in Denver after Davis left.

My contention isn't that non-peak seasons don't matter, it's that only value above replacement level should matter. If Vick Ballard can rush for 850 yards and 6 scores every year at 3.7 ypc, then Jerome Bettis shouldn't be rewarded for seasons where he rushed for 850 yards and 6 scores at 3.7 ypc. He should only be rewarded for what he does above and beyond what could be expected from Vick Ballard.

 

[mad sweeney]

To contend that Martin was not as good as Alexander, Green, Barber, George and Bettis is to indicate that the claimant did not watch much NFL action from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s.

Alexander is the poster child for statistics given and not earned. He got to run behind Walter Jones and Steve Hutchinson. Both are miles ahead of Alexander in HOF worthiness. To say that Martin was not as good as Alexander is horribly insulting.

I agree with you comment to a certain degree. Same can be said for Emmitt Smith too.Alexander was a guy who got a late start (24) and was finished by 29. Earl Campbell is nearly statistically identically to SA over their career totals and rhythms. Earl was a 24 year old rookie out of gas by 28.

I don't think you can give SA a pass for having two HOF worthy o-lineman in front of him. Setting the all time record for total TDs in a season, 5 straight years of 1000 rushing yards, 5 straight years of 1600 total yards and an 1880 yard rushing year to boot (11th all-time). He also finished 33rd all time in touches, and 14th al time in R/R TDs. He gets a bad rap for being soft, or avoiding contact, but the guys numbers put him in the top 15-20 RBs ever.

He's also the only NFL player to score more than 15 TDs in 5 straight years. I don't think he's HoF worthy, but even with the HoFers in front of him (and the criminally underrated Mack Strong at FB), he was still a Hall of Very, Very Good member. He glided through the second level and had an impeccable nose for the end zone. If he had a nose for the 1st down line, he would be a surefire HoFer.

 

[mad sweeney]

Scoring a lot of touchdowns when you are the backup situational RB doesn't really count as a late-career resurgence.

And let's not forget that the only noteworthy play he made in the Steelers postseason run to the Super Bowl was his fumble against the Colts that would have went down as one of the biggest gag plays of all-time had Roethlisberger not made a great play to prevent the Indy defender from taking it the distance.

The credit for that tackle really should go to the Colts player's wife/gf who stabbed him in the thigh earlier that week and partially hobbled him.

 

[Dentist]

Bus will get in.. career arc very similar to Marcus Allen (one of the first big complilers who was also famous and gets credit for his Heismann and Super Bowl epic run)

I hate it.. but true

Allen had 50 more TDs than the bus. Bettis was a good RB. Allen is closer to a Marshall Faulk. Allen had a far superior career AV over Bettis, due to the TDs and receiving despite having an 8-3 disadvantage in terms of 1000 yard rushing seasons.

Allen had those 50 TD's because the stupid chiefs thought he was this brilliant 1 yard TD machine. He was a VULTURE.

Putting Allen's name in the same sentence as Marshall Faulk is blasphemy to the brilliance of Marshall.

Allen had a couple brilliant seasons and an incredible college career.

But he was only amongst the best RB's in the game for a season or 2.

TOTAL compiler and vulture and my entire definition of what the hall of fame was about changed after he was a unanimous first ballotter.

I no longer care about the hall of fame since then.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Neither Martin or Bettis deserved the HOF . Both were below league average in YPC for their careers and were never considered to be among the league's elite while they played. I expect a HOFer to have periods of dominance that separates them from their peers. Both were consistently in that 2nd tier of RBs. While they played I would put their peaks behind Sanders, Smith, Tomlinson, Davis, Faulk, Holmes, Green, Barber, James, Alexander, and Portis off the top of my head. Combined they only lead the league in any major statistical category once (Martin won a rushing title) and that was a gift given to him by Holmgren (who pissed off Alexander by not letting him gain 2 yards). I would take Dillon over either of them and I am sure many would take Fred Taylor as well.

This is crazy talk regarding Martin.

This comes up in every Hall of Fame thread, but one metric I like is "cumulative top-5 finishes" (or, if you'd rather, "cumulative top-10 finishes"). It rewards excellence rather than compiling, but still rewards long careers (because long careers = lots and lots of opportunities to ring up some top finishes). Using that metric, depending on which categories you want to use (carries, rushing yards, yards from scrimmage, rushing TDs, total TDs, yards per carry, whatever) and which threshold you want to use (top 3, top 5, top 10), Curtis Martin and Terrell Davis will almost always come out in a virtual tie with Jerome Bettis sitting well back from the two.

When your YPC is below league average for the course of your career all those counting stats mean very little. Top 10 finishes are also rather generous. I mean, being in the top 1/3 of the league is good - but not exactly dominant or HOF worthy. Top 5 or top 3 is much, much, better. I also don't think that Davis should get in the HOF - just that his peak was better than Martin's by a considerable margin.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Bus will get in.. career arc very similar to Marcus Allen (one of the first big complilers who was also famous and gets credit for his Heismann and Super Bowl epic run)

I hate it.. but true

Allen had 50 more TDs than the bus. Bettis was a good RB. Allen is closer to a Marshall Faulk. Allen had a far superior career AV over Bettis, due to the TDs and receiving despite having an 8-3 disadvantage in terms of 1000 yard rushing seasons.

Allen had those 50 TD's because the stupid chiefs thought he was this brilliant 1 yard TD machine. He was a VULTURE.

Putting Allen's name in the same sentence as Marshall Faulk is blasphemy to the brilliance of Marshall.

Allen had a couple brilliant seasons and an incredible college career.

But he was only amongst the best RB's in the game for a season or 2.

TOTAL compiler and vulture and my entire definition of what the hall of fame was about changed after he was a unanimous first ballotter.

I no longer care about the hall of fame since then.

Yeah, Allen, Floyd Little, Martin, and Riggins are undeserving IMO.

 

[cstu]

Neither Martin or Bettis deserved the HOF . Both were below league average in YPC for their careers and were never considered to be among the league's elite while they played. I expect a HOFer to have periods of dominance that separates them from their peers. Both were consistently in that 2nd tier of RBs. While they played I would put their peaks behind Sanders, Smith, Tomlinson, Davis, Faulk, Holmes, Green, Barber, James, Alexander, and Portis off the top of my head. Combined they only lead the league in any major statistical category once (Martin won a rushing title) and that was a gift given to him by Holmgren (who pissed off Alexander by not letting him gain 2 yards). I would take Dillon over either of them and I am sure many would take Fred Taylor as well.

This is crazy talk regarding Martin.

This comes up in every Hall of Fame thread, but one metric I like is "cumulative top-5 finishes" (or, if you'd rather, "cumulative top-10 finishes"). It rewards excellence rather than compiling, but still rewards long careers (because long careers = lots and lots of opportunities to ring up some top finishes). Using that metric, depending on which categories you want to use (carries, rushing yards, yards from scrimmage, rushing TDs, total TDs, yards per carry, whatever) and which threshold you want to use (top 3, top 5, top 10), Curtis Martin and Terrell Davis will almost always come out in a virtual tie with Jerome Bettis sitting well back from the two.

When your YPC is below league average for the course of your career all those counting stats mean very little. Top 10 finishes are also rather generous. I mean, being in the top 1/3 of the league is good - but not exactly dominant or HOF worthy. Top 5 or top 3 is much, much, better. I also don't think that Davis should get in the HOF - just that his peak was better than Martin's by a considerable margin.

YPC is extremely over-rated, especially when you consider the teams he was on early in his career. His last 4 years with the Jets he averaged 4.35 YPC.

 

[cstu]

To contend that Martin was not as good as Alexander, Green, Barber, George and Bettis is to indicate that the claimant did not watch much NFL action from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s.

You lost me at Eddie George. If you want to talk compiler he's your guy.

Barber was a special player but unfortunately he got his start pretty late and was dinged up, preventing him being a lot high on the all time lists.

 

[cstu]

To contend that Martin was not as good as Alexander, Green, Barber, George and Bettis is to indicate that the claimant did not watch much NFL action from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s.

Alexander is the poster child for statistics given and not earned. He got to run behind Walter Jones and Steve Hutchinson. Both are miles ahead of Alexander in HOF worthiness. To say that Martin was not as good as Alexander is horribly insulting.

I agree with you comment to a certain degree. Same can be said for Emmitt Smith too.Alexander was a guy who got a late start (24) and was finished by 29. Earl Campbell is nearly statistically identically to SA over their career totals and rhythms. Earl was a 24 year old rookie out of gas by 28.

I don't think you can give SA a pass for having two HOF worthy o-lineman in front of him. Setting the all time record for total TDs in a season, 5 straight years of 1000 rushing yards, 5 straight years of 1600 total yards and an 1880 yard rushing year to boot (11th all-time). He also finished 33rd all time in touches, and 14th al time in R/R TDs. He gets a bad rap for being soft, or avoiding contact, but the guys numbers put him in the top 15-20 RBs ever.

Like Priest and Emmitt it's difficult to separate his talent from the talent of his OL. If SA had done it for longer than 5 years then I'd have a higher opinion of him but as it stands now I see him as a good RB who put up monster stats behind a great OL for a few years.

In Emmitt's defense, the Cowboys' OL (Tunei, Gogan, Stepnoskie, Gesek and Newton) wasn't that great his 2nd year when he rushed for 1563 yards. He rarely gets credit for that.

 

[Fariq]

To contend that Martin was not as good as Alexander, Green, Barber, George and Bettis is to indicate that the claimant did not watch much NFL action from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s.

You lost me at Eddie George. If you want to talk compiler he's your guy.

Barber was a special player but unfortunately he got his start pretty late and was dinged up, preventing him being a lot high on the all time lists.

Not sure if you interpreted my post correctly or not. If not, then it was my fault for a faulty post.At their peaks, Barber was better than Martin. Martin had the better career, though.

George was a tough runner who was often effective even with a low YPC average. He was certainly not better than Martin, however.

Responding to some random comments...

Allen was a great fullback when he was playing that position during the Bo Jackson years. He was a dynamic runner during early to mid 1980s. People may say he "compiled" in KC, but he played for good teams. I don't like to call that compiling. He was contributing on good football teams. Compiling is for baseball. Compiling is when a pitcher goes for an average of 12-15 with 157 Ks and a 4.19 ERA from the ages of 37-39 on for 77-85 type teams.

Somebody commented about Martin winning a rushing title because Alexander was (appropriately) sat down by Holmgren. First of all, Alexander was going to have to get two more yards and time was running out. No guarantee he gets two more yards. Second, so what if he did? Would finishing second in that rushing race have been some major blemish on Martin's candidacy?

 

[MoveToSkypager]

To contend that Martin was not as good as Alexander, Green, Barber, George and Bettis is to indicate that the claimant did not watch much NFL action from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s.

Alexander is the poster child for statistics given and not earned. He got to run behind Walter Jones and Steve Hutchinson. Both are miles ahead of Alexander in HOF worthiness. To say that Martin was not as good as Alexander is horribly insulting.

I agree with you comment to a certain degree. Same can be said for Emmitt Smith too.Alexander was a guy who got a late start (24) and was finished by 29. Earl Campbell is nearly statistically identically to SA over their career totals and rhythms. Earl was a 24 year old rookie out of gas by 28.

I don't think you can give SA a pass for having two HOF worthy o-lineman in front of him. Setting the all time record for total TDs in a season, 5 straight years of 1000 rushing yards, 5 straight years of 1600 total yards and an 1880 yard rushing year to boot (11th all-time). He also finished 33rd all time in touches, and 14th al time in R/R TDs. He gets a bad rap for being soft, or avoiding contact, but the guys numbers put him in the top 15-20 RBs ever.

Like Priest and Emmitt it's difficult to separate his talent from the talent of his OL. If SA had done it for longer than 5 years then I'd have a higher opinion of him but as it stands now I see him as a good RB who put up monster stats behind a great OL for a few years.

In Emmitt's defense, the Cowboys' OL (Tunei, Gogan, Stepnoskie, Gesek and Newton) wasn't that great his 2nd year when he rushed for 1563 yards. He rarely gets credit for that.

Emmitt's OL was way better than Priest's. They won 3 super bowls and dominated that entire period. Greatest OL of all time.

 

[Ballstein]

I

To contend that Martin was not as good as Alexander, Green, Barber, George and Bettis is to indicate that the claimant did not watch much NFL action from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s.

Alexander is the poster child for statistics given and not earned. He got to run behind Walter Jones and Steve Hutchinson. Both are miles ahead of Alexander in HOF worthiness. To say that Martin was not as good as Alexander is horribly insulting.

I agree with you comment to a certain degree. Same can be said for Emmitt Smith too.

Alexander was a guy who got a late start (24) and was finished by 29. Earl Campbell is nearly statistically identically to SA over their career totals and rhythms. Earl was a 24 year old rookie out of gas by 28.

I don't think you can give SA a pass for having two HOF worthy o-lineman in front of him. Setting the all time record for total TDs in a season, 5 straight years of 1000 rushing yards, 5 straight years of 1600 total yards and an 1880 yard rushing year to boot (11th all-time). He also finished 33rd all time in touches, and 14th al time in R/R TDs. He gets a bad rap for being soft, or avoiding contact, but the guys numbers put him in the top 15-20 RBs ever.

Like Priest and Emmitt it's difficult to separate his talent from the talent of his OL. If SA had done it for longer than 5 years then I'd have a higher opinion of him but as it stands now I see him as a good RB who put up monster stats behind a great OL for a few years.

In Emmitt's defense, the Cowboys' OL (Tunei, Gogan, Stepnoskie, Gesek and Newton) wasn't that great his 2nd year when he rushed for 1563 yards. He rarely gets credit for that.

Emmitt's OL was way better than Priest's. They won 3 super bowls and dominated that entire period. Greatest OL of all time.

That OL and E. Smith got Troy Aikman into the HOF. Aikman shouldn't be in there IMO

 

[sn0mm1s]

YPC is extremely over-rated, especially when you consider the teams he was on early in his career. His last 4 years with the Jets he averaged 4.35 YPC.

YPC might be overrated if you are comparing 2 RBs with say a 4.3 and 4.1 average. But you are sweeping under the rug a HOF RB being below league average. It also wouldn't surprise me that his 4.35 average his last 4 years is right around league average.

 

[sn0mm1s]

Somebody commented about Martin winning a rushing title because Alexander was (appropriately) sat down by Holmgren. First of all, Alexander was going to have to get two more yards and time was running out. No guarantee he gets two more yards. Second, so what if he did? Would finishing second in that rushing race have been some major blemish on Martin's candidacy?

Yes, it would mean his was this supposedly great RB that never managed to lead the league in anything.