A few years of dominance vs. a career of being very good (1 Viewer)

[BGP]

I don't even believe in the concept of a hall of fame, so the question is moot.

Not surprising, coming from a Browns fan.

Huh?The Browns have quite a few players in the HOF.

 

[BassNBrew]

I don't even believe in the concept of a hall of fame, so the question is moot.

Not surprising, coming from a Browns fan.

Huh?The Browns have quite a few players in the HOF.

Yeah...but only the dinosaurs have recollection of those exploits. For the rest of us, Brownies producing is like buying into Moses parting the Red Sea.

 

[Sidewinder16]

I think Bettis was regarded as among the best in his position perhaps once or twice in his career. He hung around a long period of time and racked up the solid seasons necessary to have all time great numbers.I'm a fan of a HOFer blowing an argument away, and I don't see it with Bettis. I think his case is a tough argument, and for that reason he shouldn't be in.Same with TD though, he's got a big knock on him, I don't really care what could have been if his injuries hadn't shortened his career, I only care about what he did do. That wasn't enough to warrant HOF status IMO.(edit, clarity)

I agree wholeheartedly. If their is a hot debate on the worthiness of a candidate, then they shouldn't be in. Neither Bettis nor Davis deserve to be in.

Doesn't that limit HOFers to first ballot only? If they didn't get in on their first ballot, or even first year of eligibility, then there was significant debate as to their worthiness, right?That omits the likes of **** "Night Train" Lane, Jim Taylor, Sonny Jurgensen, Pete Rozelle, Paul Hornung, Fran Tarkenton, Doak Walker, Larry Csonka, Len Dawson, Mike Ditka, Fred Biletnikoff, John Riggins, Bill Walsh, Kellen Winslow and Charlie Joiner (just to name a few).

 

[BGP]

I don't even believe in the concept of a hall of fame, so the question is moot.

Not surprising, coming from a Browns fan.

Huh?The Browns have quite a few players in the HOF.

Yeah...but only the dinosaurs have recollection of those exploits. For the rest of us, Brownies producing is like buying into Moses parting the Red Sea.

Ok if that's the case, then we might as well include the Redskins, Bills, Falcons, Cardinals, Lions, Saints, and Texans in this discussion.

 

[Sonny Lubick Blowup Doll]

Davis. More glory. Less surgery later.

 

[David Yudkin]

Doesn't that limit HOFers to first ballot only? If they didn't get in on their first ballot, or even first year of eligibility, then there was significant debate as to their worthiness, right?That omits the likes of **** "Night Train" Lane, Jim Taylor, Sonny Jurgensen, Pete Rozelle, Paul Hornung, Fran Tarkenton, Doak Walker, Larry Csonka, Len Dawson, Mike Ditka, Fred Biletnikoff, John Riggins, Bill Walsh, Kellen Winslow and Charlie Joiner (just to name a few).

IMO, either a player is a HOFer or not. Waiting and dragging the process out for 15 years seems like a waste of time IMO. Guys on the bubble seem to get move love when their time left for consideration starts running out, so why not cut to the chase?Unlike baseball, the football HOF limits how many players can get in each year, so that could obviously impact the process. Sometimes I think the longer a player waits to get in the more it hurts his chances. For example, for RB and WR, the current crop of players has been so productive that by the time some players will get consideration other ones will have passed them in the career rankings. We've already seen this in practice with players like Andre Reed and Art Monk.I would have a 5-year window for players to get in. A player's stats and accomplishments will not change once they retired, and having to wait 5 years to even be eligible, how much more time do the voters need to evaluate them?Think about it . . . if you were a voter, why would you be inclined after not voting for someone for years that suddenly that player was worthy of induction? If you watched a movie and didn't like it but watched it over and over and over for years, would you really suddenly decide it was an all-time great?

 

[cantrell]

I think TD should go in before Bettis. Anyone who watched football from 1996-1998 remembers what a force he was. It seemed like he could get 7 ypc at ease out there. He showed up big time in the playoffs and the Super Bowl titles to boot.

Bettis had a really good seasons early in his career, but mostly I remember the fat guy just getting 1 yard TDs and short yardage. He didn't exactly show up come playoff time. Out of 13 playoff games he only got over 100 3 times (compared to TDs 8 playoff game where he got well over 100 7 times). He should think the Liquor'd Up Kicker for the miss against the Colts or he'd go down in history for the most amazing choke job in playoff history.

TD burned out > Bettis faded away

 

[Pat Patriot]

Wow. This is not even close. TD every day and twice on Sundays.

This vote just tells me there are a lot of biased Steelers fans on this site. There is no other logical reason for voting Bettis in this poll.

 

[Pat Patriot]

I wouldn't even call Bettis "very good'. The guy had double digit TDs only twice in his career. Only 5 times did he get above 1100 yards. He had very good years, 93, 96, and 97. But often times he found himself in some RBBC.

I'd say Bettis had a specific role on the team, and in that role he was irreplacable. But there are lots of RBs out there who are far more talented overall. As long as he was there, they always needed that speed back to take it to the outside.

Do I think this gets him in the HOF? I don't even believe in the concept of a hall of fame, so the question is moot.

 

[renesauz]

I think Bettis was regarded as among the best in his position perhaps once or twice in his career. He hung around a long period of time and racked up the solid seasons necessary to have all time great numbers.

I'm a fan of a HOFer blowing an argument away, and I don't see it with Bettis. I think his case is a tough argument, and for that reason he shouldn't be in.

Same with TD though, he's got a big knock on him, I don't really care what could have been if his injuries hadn't shortened his career, I only care about what he did do. That wasn't enough to warrant HOF status IMO.

(edit, clarity)

I agree wholeheartedly. If their is a hot debate on the worthiness of a candidate, then they shouldn't be in. Neither Bettis nor Davis deserve to be in.

Doesn't that limit HOFers to first ballot only? If they didn't get in on their first ballot, or even first year of eligibility, then there was significant debate as to their worthiness, right?That omits the likes of **** "Night Train" Lane, Jim Taylor, Sonny Jurgensen, Pete Rozelle, Paul Hornung, Fran Tarkenton, Doak Walker, Larry Csonka, Len Dawson, Mike Ditka, Fred Biletnikoff, John Riggins, Bill Walsh, Kellen Winslow and Charlie Joiner (just to name a few).

Doesn't that limit HOFers to first ballot only? If they didn't get in on their first ballot, or even first year of eligibility, then there was significant debate as to their worthiness, right?

That omits the likes of **** "Night Train" Lane, Jim Taylor, Sonny Jurgensen, Pete Rozelle, Paul Hornung, Fran Tarkenton, Doak Walker, Larry Csonka, Len Dawson, Mike Ditka, Fred Biletnikoff, John Riggins, Bill Walsh, Kellen Winslow and Charlie Joiner (just to name a few).

IMO, either a player is a HOFer or not. Waiting and dragging the process out for 15 years seems like a waste of time IMO. Guys on the bubble seem to get move love when their time left for consideration starts running out, so why not cut to the chase?Unlike baseball, the football HOF limits how many players can get in each year, so that could obviously impact the process. Sometimes I think the longer a player waits to get in the more it hurts his chances. For example, for RB and WR, the current crop of players has been so productive that by the time some players will get consideration other ones will have passed them in the career rankings. We've already seen this in practice with players like Andre Reed and Art Monk.

I would have a 5-year window for players to get in. A player's stats and accomplishments will not change once they retired, and having to wait 5 years to even be eligible, how much more time do the voters need to evaluate them?

Think about it . . . if you were a voter, why would you be inclined after not voting for someone for years that suddenly that player was worthy of induction? If you watched a movie and didn't like it but watched it over and over and over for years, would you really suddenly decide it was an all-time great?

David summed it up well. The limitations that the HOF places on #'s often prevents worthy candidates from first year induction, and occassionally prevents worthy candidates from ever being inducted. On the flip side, it also prevents less then worthy candidates from having much of a chance. There's been more then a few recent inductees to the baseball HOF that have left me Again, neither TD nor Bettis deserves induction...and that's not meant to disrespect either of them.

 

[cantrell]

Bettis made 4 pro bowls in 5 years. Not even Davis did that.

Davis made the pro bowl 3 seasons in a row (96-98). Not even Bettis did that.